Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Oxford Gothic Grammar (D. Gary Miller)
The Oxford Gothic Grammar (D. Gary Miller)
The Oxford Gothic Grammar (D. Gary Miller)
D. G A RY M I L L E R
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© D. Gary Miller 2019
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2019
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018956932
ISBN 978–0–19–881359–0
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third-party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third-party website referenced in this work.
qenai jere fimf tigiwe meinai, Iudiþ, þizai liuboston
‘for my dearest wife of fifty years, Judith’
12 August 2017
CONTENTS
Preface xvii
Acknowledgments xxi
Dating and other conventions xxili
Bibliographical abbreviations xxix
General abbreviations XXXV
3. 1 Introduction 58
3.2 Noun inflection 58
3.3 Additional noun classes 61
3.4 D-words 63
3.5 Syntax of sa, pata, so 65
3.6 Weak and strong adjectives 66
3.7 Bare and -ata neuters 68
3.8 Uses of weak and strong adjectives 71
3.9 Nonattributive adjectives 72
3.10 Attributive adjectives and D-words 73
3.11 Vocatives, headless NPs, and conversion 75
3. 12 Comparison of adjectives 77
3.13 The nonpast (incompletive) participle 80
3. 14 First and second person pronouns 82
3. 15 The third person pronoun 83
3. 16 Interrogative and indefinite pronouns 84
3. 17 luas, lua 'who, what' 85
3. 18 h>azuh 'each' 86
3. 19 saluazuh 'anyone' 87
3.20 pish>azuh 'whosoever' 87
3.2 1 pisluaduh, pish>aru h 'wherever' 87
3.22 h>arjis 'who, which?' 88
3.23 luarjizuh 'each, every' 88
3.24 ainJuarjizuh 'each and every one' 89
3.25 luileiks {what-like] 'of what sort', h>elaups" 'how great' 89
3.26 Pronominal substitutes 89
3.27 Negative polarity 90
3.28 Dualistic pronominals 92
3.29 Cardinal numbers 93
3.30 Ordinal numbers 95
3.3 1 Deictic adverbs 96
3.32 Sentential and VP adverbs 99
4. 7 Accusative 109
4.8 Cognate accusative objects 109
4.9 Accusative of the extent of time and space llO
4.10 Accusative of the experiencer 110
4.11 Accusative of respect and adverbial accusative 112
4.12 Genitive 113
4.13 Adnominal-relational genitive 113
4.14 Genitive of source 115
4.15 Genitive of the particular 116
4.16 Genitive of contents and the container 116
4.17 Genitive of specification 117
4.18 Genitive offate 118
4.19 Genitive with adjectives 119
4.20 Genitive with time and place words 120
4.21 Genitive of time and direction 121
4.22 Adverbial genitive 122
4.23 Subjective and objective genitive 122
4.24 Partitive genitive 124
4.25 Partitive with numerals and nouns 125
4.26 Partitive with adjectival quantifiers J26
4.27 Partitive with pronouns 127
4.28 Partitive with negation 128
4.29 Adverbal genitive 130
4.30 Dative 133
4.31 Dative absolute 133
4.32 Dative of reference 134
4.33 Point of view dative 135
4.34 Dative of comparison 136
4.35 Dative of degree 138
4.36 Dative of instrument and means 139
4.37 Dative of time 141
4.38 Dative ofpossession 142
4.39 Dative of inaUenable possession 144
4.40 Dative ofprice 145
4.41 Dative with adjectives 146
4.42 Dative of respect 148
4.43 Dative verb complements 149
4.44 Verbs with semantically determined case variability 155
4.45 Verbs with apparently arbitrary case variability 157
4.46 Variable case complements of hausjan 'hear' 158
4.47 Dative of the person, accusative of the entity 158
4.48 Other complements ofhausjan 159
4.49 Conclusion on hausjan 161
x Contents
6 P-words 232
7 Compounding 280
11.1 Constituent structure in the Parable of the Sower and the Seed 497
11.2 Word order in the title deeds and Bible tr anslation 498
11.3 Title deeds (A = Arezzo, N = Naples) 498
11.4 Bible translation (S = Sower and Seed, Mt= Matthew) 499
11.5 Linearization overview 502
11.6 Pronouns 502
11.7 D-words 503
11.8 Prepositional phrases (PPs) 504
11.9 Adjectives 504
11 .10 Genitives 505
11.11 Numerals and quantifiers 506
11.12 Particles 506
11.13 Verbs and auxiliaries 508
11.14 Vl and V2 5ll
11.15 Negation 514
11.1 6 The position of Gothic ,vithin Germanic 518
11.1 7 Typology of Gothic and Gennanic linearization 520
References 567
Index of Gothic Words 643
Index of Names and Places 684
Index of Subjects 687
PR EFACE
Justification
Why another grammar of Gothic? Because many of the resources are in German,
French, Russian, or Italian, and assume a working knowledge of various ancient lan-
guages or a high level of competence in linguistic theory, Germanic students at an
early stage in their education no longer have ready access to the Gothic texts. Students
interested in Gothic as a very early translation of the Bible, even antedating Jerome’s
Latin Vulgate, have been hard-pressed to examine the Gothic corpus.
The recent discoveries of the Bologna fragment and the Crimean graffiti have not
been included in any other English grammar of Gothic.
Gothic grammars in English are not very helpful because they focus on phonology
and morphology or language history to the near exclusion of syntax. When I had the
xviii Preface
occasion to teach Gothic, students were in a perpetual quandary about the syntactic
constructions because of the large number of idioms and Greek calques.
Phrases and idioms are treated throughout. The uniqueness of this book lies in the
large amount of semantic and syntactic discussion. In addition to individual chapters
devoted to syntax, nearly every chapter has a syntactic component.
This volume makes no pretenses to originality. It does what a reference grammar is
supposed to do: provide information about the language and references for additional
discussion.1 Speculative hypotheses about the nature of the grammar and conjectural
linguistic analyses are kept to a minimum. In particular, while the organizational bias
is generative, ephemeral formalizations are avoided.
Most of the Gothic grammars in English with historical discussion are dated.
Gothic grammars typically have chapters on historical phonology and historical
morphology. Unlike those grammars, Indo-European is not discussed here because
this grammar is primarily descriptive. While historical reconstructions are made
throughout, it is pointless to repeat what can be found in Ringe (2006, 2017), Ringe &
Taylor (2014), Fulk (2018), and any of the handbooks.
Nearly all grammars make up Gothic forms. Full paradigms are cited when very
few Gothic nouns and no adjectives or verbs exist in all possible forms. Rare is the
grammar that indicates nonexisting forms. Not necessarily expected forms like dat
pl nahtam ‘nights’ (§3.3), acc pl aiwins ‘eons’ (§3.2) show that it is unsafe to make up
forms.
Many unknowns remain about Gothic. For this reason, form counts are pro-
vided for many words that are poorly attested. But even non-rare words can have
accidental gaps. Were it not for auhumists ‘highest’ in Jn 18:13, we would not know
from the other thirty-two occurrences of this adjective that it is not exclusively
weak. It remains unknown, however, whether it is accidental that (i) the only exist-
ing strong form is nominative singular masculine, exactly like present participles,
and (ii) if so, why.
1 References provide additional discussion only. They are not to be construed as agreeing with the
point made unless a work is specifically cited in that context.
Preface xix
2 Scribal punctuation is ignored in most editions (except Bennett 1960) and grammars because it sel-
dom correlates with modern punctuation. It sometimes signals rhetorical emphasis or a rhythmic recita-
tion unit (very clearly in the Lord’s Prayer §10.4), but often appears arbitrary. In parallel passages, for
instance, there is little consistency, and the intent of the marks can elude the modern reader. The two main
forms are a colon : for larger segments of text, and a raised period · for smaller bits, brief pauses, light
emphasis, or individual words. Enlarged letters, spaces, paragraph signs, and colon with horizontal line
also occur. Line breaks (here marked with |) are also a form of punctuation: | akei sunjon | akei unwerein
| akei agis | akei gairnein | . . . (2Cor 7:11A/B) ‘but (what) defensiveness, but (what) indignation, but (what)
fear, but (what) ardent desire . . .’ (Braun 1913: 372; cf. akei in App.). See the text samples in Kauffmann
(1920) and the discussion in Friesen & Grape (1927: 51ff.) and Werth (1965: 162ff., w. lit).
xx Preface
Parts of this work have been presented at colloquia, and other parts read by friends
and colleagues. The number of contributors is truly inestimable. Most regrettable is
that some of the more influential ones are no longer around to receive my gratitude.
Those who have most influenced my thinking on various parts of this work are
William Bennett, whose Gothic course I attended at the 1973 Linguistic Institute in
Ann Arbor, Warren Cowgill, Harold Roe, Oswald Szemerényi, and Calvert Watkins.
My biggest debt of gratitude goes to Artūras Ratkus, who has provided me with
input on nearly every topic, hundreds of references, and major assistance with the
Eastern European and Russian literature.
Special thanks go to Patrick Stiles, whose meticulous reading of the entire type-
script is responsible for countless corrections, references, and other improvements.
Carla Falluomini saved me from many pitfalls with her valuable comments and
corrections throughout, but especially on the manuscripts and text selections.
From Roland Schuhmann and Sara Pons-Sanz I received several lists of helpful cor-
rections. To Rob Howell I am indebted for discussion especially of Chapter 2. Wayne
Harbert provided me with a number of astute comments and assisted me with various
syntactic problems. For other helpful suggestions, references, and improvements,
I am grateful to George Dunkel, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Helena Halmari, Galia Hatav,
Heinrich Hettrich, Hans Henrich Hock, Jay Jasanoff, who used an earlier version of
this text in his graduate seminar on Germanic, Brian Joseph, Paul Kiparsky, Jared
Klein, Craig Melchert, Sergio Neri, Joseph Salmons, Dieter Wanner, and, of course,
the readers at Oxford University Press.
A number of scholars have generously shared their prepublished work, in particu-
lar, Carla Falluomini, Wayne Harbert, Hans Henrich Hock, Jay Jasanoff, Jared Klein,
Artūras Ratkus, Don Ringe, †Magnús Snædal,1 Seiichi Suzuki, Brendan Wolfe, Robert
Woodhouse. Anita Auer and Michiel de Vaan provided me with a copy of their work
on the Bologna fragment.
Others who have contributed to this work both directly and indirectly include Elly
van Gelderen and Jules Gliesche. Whatever is right in this work I owe to the expertise
of friends and colleagues. They are of course not responsible for any errors.
Thanks also to Julia Steer for her interest in commissioning this work and securing
its publication, to Victoria Sunter for careful editorial preparation of the typescript, to
Clare Jones for seeing the work through the production stages, and to Miranda Bethell
1 Gothic studies suffered a major blow with the sudden passing of Magnús Snædal on 3 December
2017. His work on Gothic has been indispensable, and his major contributions will be sorely missed.
xxii Acknowledgments
D. Gary Miller
Professor emeritus and Adjunct Professor
Linguistics and the Classics
Universities of Florida and Colorado at Boulder
dgm@ufl.edu
DATING A ND OTHER CON VENTIONS
Dating
To avoid the problem of bc/ad vs. bce/ce (‘Common Era’) and obviate lengthy refer-
ences (‘second half of the 1st century bc(e)’), a modified/simplified version of the
conventions in Miller (1994) will be adopted to simplify dating. Dates are given in
brackets, e.g. [750], which will be roughly equivalent to [mid c8], more simply, [c8m].
All dates will be understood to be ce unless specified bce. Most dates are approximate
signalled by [ca.] (= circa ‘about’) or equivalent. Following are the dating conventions
standardly used in this work:
forms that are postulated but entirely unattested, (ii) Germanic and Indo-European
reconstructions, or (iii) ungrammatical forms. Thus, Goth. aggwus* ‘narrow’ is
unattested in that form but note nom/acc sg n aggwu. It differs from *unags ‘fearless’,
which is unattested in any of its possible forms and therefore has the status of a recon-
struction. It is posited to underlie unagei* ‘fearlessness’ (§8.5).
To capture the belief that ai and au had a double value as both diphthongs and low
mid vowels, Grimm (e.g. 1822: 43–8) devised a diacritic distinction not in the Gothic
script: faíhu ‘chattels’, faúr ‘before’ with short vowel, máizo ‘more’, sunáus ‘son’s’ with
original diphthong. Grimm’s convention is observed in Chapters 1 and 2, and in cases
of potential ambiguity, as a heuristic for those less familiar with Germanic.
Whether or not Gothic retained distinctive vowel length is impossible to deter-
mine with certainty. There are indications of distinctive length in both consonants
(§2.3) and vowels (§2.9). If length was preserved, it was part of every word’s lexical
representation, and for this reason is indicated in this grammar for all vowels except
e and o, which were exclusively long and therefore by convention need not be so
indicated.
Verbs are listed by the four principal parts that are needed to predict all of the
forms. The first principal part is the infinitive, from which all nonpast forms follow.
The second and third principal parts are conventionally the 1/3 singular and the 1
plural respectively of the preterite active indicative. Because of the limited corpus,
third person forms are usually more frequent. The third person singular is indicated
as 3sg. Third person plural forms are not signaled because of the difference between
1pl -um and 3pl -un. The fourth principal part is the preterite participle.
An asterisk before a principal part, such as *bidans, means that no form of that
category, in this instance the preterite participle, is attested for that verb. A following
asterisk indicates only that that particular form is not found but that other forms of
the category occur. A citation such as «mitan (in usmitan 1Tim 3:15A)» means that
mitan is not attested as a simplex but the form occurs with a prefix.
Underscoring is the usual way of indicating a word or form targeted in a given
construction. For instance, imma in maiza imma ‘greater than him’ exemplifies the
dative of comparison (§4.34).
A dotted underscore calls attention to a prefix as distinct from the root, e.g. ạṇḍnamt
‘you received’ (1Cor 4:17A).
A broken undercore indicates letters inserted by an editor. For instance, in the sec-
ond occurrence of gafilhan ‘bury’ in Mt 8:21f., ga is not in the manuscript.
Cited forms are italicized except in numbered examples, where letters in italics indi-
cate safe restorations. In an italicized string, safe restorations are deitalicized. Consider
the following illustration from Chapter 6:
(62) gawitais unsis faura kunja þamm[a] (Bl 1r.6 = Ps 11/12:8)
watch.2sg.opt us for race.dat D.dat.sg.n
‘you should guard us from this generation’
Dating and other conventions xxv
In this example, the [a] of þamma is reconstructed by the editor, and the is of gawitais
is safely restored, as is the ja of kunja. Outside of a numbered example, the first word
would be cited gawitais, in which deitalicized is indicates the safe restoration.
It is important that uncertain readings be indicated. For instance, the older reading
us handam . . . u.a (Bl 1v.13) to the -u- stem handus ‘hand’, even if segmented handa-m
[ . . . ] with a late compounding vowel -a- (Schuhmann 2016: 61), was bizarre. It is now
read us þiudana (Falluomini 2017; see §10.11).
Another example of a difficult reading is Naubaimbair ‘November’ in the Gothic
calendar (§2.3). Landau (2006) denies that the word exists, but Magnús Snædal (p.c.)
writes (email of 8 March 2017):
Maßmann was the first to read naubaimbair, Uppström accepted it with the comment, s[atis]
cl[arum] [‘sufficiently clear’]. Ebbinghaus accepted it without comment. Neither appears to
have found it difficult to read that word. In the facsimile edition of the Ambrosian codices it is
almost illegible, but remnants of letters are apparent. I think that naubaimbair is/was in the
calendar. The reason for the fact that this word has been erased more thoroughly than the other
parts of the calendar text is perhaps that naubaimbair was not in the original but was added
later with another ink. The purpose of adding naubaimbair was to explain fruma jiuleis [‘first
Yule’].
*h2ei-(e)r- would be the full (e-) grade PIE form, and *ayer- post-IE (thanks to Roland
Schuhmann for this precise formulation).
I have taken the liberty of making certain substitutions in the interest of consist-
ency and clarity. For AHDR ’s obsolete *ǝ, the appropriate laryngeal (*h1, *h2, *h3) has
been supplied. *H or *hx without a number means that the precise nature of the laryn-
geal is undetermined. Many of the diacritics in LIV, EDPG, and LIPP have been
altered, especially i/y, u/w, for their *i̯, *u̯ , e.g. *yeug- ‘yoke’ (= *i̯eu̯g- LIV 316).
When AHDR’s oldest form and a reconstruction in one of the other lexicons is the
same, a single form can be cited without reference, e.g. *speḱ- ‘observe’. Sometimes, for
simplicity, just the older form is cited, e.g. *ǵenh1- ‘beget’, instead of AHDR’s *genǝ-.
Another (perhaps peculiar) convention I have followed is to write the Indo-
European aspirates merely as *bh, dh, ǵh, gh, gwh, except when adjacent to a laryngeal.
The zero grade of *deh3- ‘give’ is written *dh3-, but to avoid potential confusion, that of
*dheh1- ‘put; make’ is written *dhh1- with voiced aspirate signaled by superscript h.
Other conventions
The following (mostly standard) conventions are employed:
** impossible form
?* possibly ungrammatical or ill-formed (marginal at best)
? questionable form; marginally acceptable sentence
# grammatical but not in the intended meaning
| line division
> ‘is realized as’, ‘becomes’ (in historical changes)
< ‘is derived from’ (in historical changes)
→ ‘leads to; results in’
x → y = ‘x is replaced by y’
⇒ x ⇒ y ‘x is transformed into y’
~> ‘tends to become’
~ ‘varies with’
≈ ‘strongly covaries with’
= ‘is equivalent or identical to’
≠ ‘is not the same as’
Dating and other conventions xxvii
[] —dates
—feature representation
—Greek or Latin text underlying the Gothic
—Indo-European roots
—morphological or syntactic composition
—peripheral or parenthetical information (sometimes within parentheses)
—phonetic representations
—reconstructed letter(s) or text
—syntactic representations
[[ ]] erroneous letters deleted by editor
(( )) Gothic words that have no correspondent in any extant Greek manuscript
// phonologically contrastive representation
. in phonological representations, e.g. /gai.jus/: syllable boundary
{} morpholexical representation
<> graphic representation
∅ empty set
BIBLIOGR APHICA L A BBR EV IATIONS
ORM The oldest runic monuments in the north: Dating and distribution.
By Lisbeth M. Imer. NOWELE 62/63: 169–212 (2011)
OSD Altsächsisches Handwörterbuch / A Concise Old Saxon Dictionary.
By Heinrich Tiefenbach. Berlin: De Gruyter (2010)
PBB (Paul und Braunes) Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und
Literatur
PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association. The Modern
Language Association of America
PWGA Zur primären Wortbildung im germanischen Akjektivsystem.
By Frank Michael Heidermanns. KZ 99/2: 278–307 (1986)
Snædal [with no further specification] = Snædal (2013a, Vol. 2)
SPE The Sound Pattern of English. By Noam Chomsky & Morris Halle.
New York: Harper & Row (1968)
TLG Thesaurus linguae graecae
TLL Thesaurus linguae latinae
TPS Transactions of the Philological Society
Ulf. Ulfilae, Gothorum episcopi, opera omnia, sive veteris et novi testamenti
versionis Gothicae fragmenta quae supersunt . . . grammatica et
glossarium Vol. 1. By Hans Conon von der Gabelentz & Julius Löbe
<Loebe>. Paris: Petit-Montrouge (1848)
VEW Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen
starken Verben. By Elmar Seebold. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton
(1970)
VG Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische
Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. By Stefan Schaffner.
Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft (2001)
VGS Die Verbalabstracta in den germanischen Sprachen, Ihrer Bildung nach
dargestellt. By Karl von Bahder. Halle: Niemeyer (1880)
WHS Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. By Ernst Risch. Berlin: De
Gruyter (1973)
ZfdA Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur
GENER A L A BBR EV IATIONS
A adjective
a ante ‘before’ (in dates)
abl ablative
abs absolute
acc accusative
act. active
Adj/adj adjective
ad loc. at the place (in the text)
adv adverb
aff affix
Agr agreement
AI accusative and infinitive
all allative
Ambr. (codex) Ambrosiani
Angl. Anglian dialect (OE)
aor aorist
AP adjective phrase
App. (= see the entry in) Appendix
arch. archaic
Arg. (codex) Argenteus
Arm. Armenian
art article
asp aspect
athem. athematic
Aux auxiliary
C consonant
c century
ca. circa / about (of dates)
Cal Gothic calendar
caus causative
ce Common Era
Celt. Celtic
cf. compare
Ch. Chapter (in this book)
ch. chapter
Chron (Old English) Chronicle
CL Classical Latin
Cl Classical (Gk., etc.)
cnj conjunction
cod. codex
codd. codices
Col Colossians
cmpv comparative
comp complementizer
conc concessive
conj conjunction
cont. continued
Cor Corinthians
CP complementizer phrase
Crim. Crimean Gothic
D demonstrative/determiner
dat dative
deadj deadjectival
def definite
dem demonstrative
denom denominal
desid desiderative
det determiner
deverb deverbal
dial. dialect(al)
dim diminutive
DP determiner phrase
General abbreviations xxxvii
Du Dutch
du dual
dupl duplicate(d) in MSS A and B
durat durative
E east
eccl. ecclesiastical
ECM exceptional case marking
ed. (with name) editor/edited by
edn edition
eds. editors
e.g. exempli gratia, for example
Elfd. Elfdalian, Övdalian
Eng. English
Eph Ephesians
epigr. epigraphic
esp. especially
etc. etcetera; and other things
et al. et alii, and other people
etym. etymology, etymological(ly)
Ex Exodus
excl. excluding
Gal Galatians
Gaul. Gaulish
Gen/gen genitive
gen. ed. general editor
Germ. German
Gk. Greek (Ancient Greek)
GL Grimm’s Law
Gmc. Germanic
Gosp Gospel
Goth. (Biblical) Gothic
Grd gerund
H heavy (syllable)
hab habitual
Hitt. Hittite
itr intransitive
Jn John
KL Kluge’s Law
Lat. Latin
LIE late Indo-European
lit. literally
Lith. Lithuanian
L light (syllable)
Lindisf Lindisfarne (ONorth.), oldest of the OE gospel glosses (ed. Skeat 1871–7)
Lk Luke
LL Late Latin
loc locative
Luv. Luvian
N north
N noun
n neuter (in glosses)
Nbr Northumbrian
n.d. no date available
NE northeast
neg negative; negator
xl General abbreviations
Neh Nehemiah
NGmc. North Germanic
nom nominative
nonpst nonpast
NP noun phrase
ns new series
NT New Testament
nt neuter
num numeral
NW Northwest (Germanic)
N/W North/West (Gmc. dialects)
OT Old Testament
OV object-verb
pst past
Ptc/ptc particle
PWA predicative weak adjective
R resonant (l, r, m, n, j, w)
r. recto
recip reciprocal
refl reflexive
rel relative (complementizer)
rev. revised
rhet. rhetoric(al)
Rom Romans
Rushw Rushworth (Merc.), 2nd oldest of the OE gospel glosses (ed. Skeat 1871–7)
RV Rig Veda (Sanskrit)
Thess Thessalonians
theta thematic (role)
General abbreviations xliii
Tim Timothy
Tit Titus
TL Thurneysen’s Law
Toch. Tocharian
tr transitive
tr. translator; translated by
W west
wk weak
WS West Saxon dialect (OE)
w. lit with literature (references)
Despite many defenses of the traditional account, there is no secure evidence for a
Scandinavian origin of the Goths, no runic evidence, and linguistic parallels between
Gothic and Old Norse are inconclusive. The Goths had considerable contact with the
Romans. Not only are there many borrowings from Latin, but many Greek words in
Gothic have their Latin form. The entire Gothic corpus contains a little over 70,000
words preserved in some 15 documents. Many mysteries surround the Gothic transla-
tion of the Bible. Evidence for multiple translators is presented from lexical, morpho-
logical, and syntactic localization, as well as the range from fully idiomatic to
marginally acceptable to ungrammatical constructions.
Most of what is known about the Goths is from Jordanes, maybe a romanized Goth
but he is unclear on that and possibly of mixed Alan descent (Wagner 1967: 4–17;
Vieira Pinto 2017).1 Born ?ca. 480 on the lower Danube, he served in Moesia (north
of Thrace, northern Bulgaria today) as a notarius (secretary) to the otherwise
unknown Ostrogoth-Alan Gunthigis, also called Baza, a military commander in
Moesia (Vieira Pinto 2017).2
1 For the Goths and their history, see Heather & Matthews (1991), Scardigli (1964, 1973), Wagner
(1967), Hachmann (1970), Høst (1971), Christensen (2002) [disputes Jordanes’ sources and Svennung
(1967, 1969)], Teillet (2011). See also Schwarcz (1992), Lenski (1995) [revised chronology], Budanova
(1999), Wolfram (1976 [pre-Christian religion], 1979, 2005a, b), McLynn (2007), Barnish & Marazzi
(2007), Liebeschuetz (2011) [defends Jordanes on Gothic traditions, for which cf. Vitiello 2005], and the
papers in Hagberg (1972) and Kaliff & Munkhammar (2013). There are many unknowns about Wulfila
and the Bible translation (Ebbinghaus 1992; Poulter 2007; Munkhammar 2011b). Bibliographies include
Petersen (2005, 2009), Ferreiro (2008, 2011, 2014), and the references in Falluomini (2013a, 2015).
2 The name Baza occurs at Ammædara (Francovich Onesti 2002: 179, comparing MPers. bāz ‘falcon’).
Jordanes’ Getica ‘The Getae/Goths’ (on the confusion see Löwe 1991), was written
in Constantinople in Moesian administrative Latin (Croke 1987) before 1 April 551. It
departs considerably from what little is known about the lost twelve-book Historia
Gothica (Gothic History) [a533] by Cassiodorus [ca. 490–ca. 583] (Barnish 1984;
Croke 1987). Jordanes, who was writing a world history, was asked to summarize that
work, but without access to it, as he confesses in his Preface, he had to rely on memory
from prior readings (relēgī ‘I (re)read’ or ‘re-re-read’?; see Wagner 1967: 50), plus other
sources, especially Orosius, Priscus, and Ablavius (nothing extant but see Hachmann
1970: 59–109), and his own additions (Christensen 2002; Liebeschuetz 2011: 187ff.).
Everyone agrees that Jordanes was wrong that “the Goths” were initially united.
Jordanes uses the Scandia theme: the Goths moved from Scandza to Gothiscandza
near the delta of the Vistula, then southeast in c2, splitting around the Black Sea.3
Scandza may not belong to Gothic tradition (Hachmann 1970; Christensen 2002: 263).
Another suggestion is that “the Scandinavian Goths came from the south across the
Baltic Sea rather than the other way around” (Kortlandt 2001: 22; cf. Mańczak 1984,
1987). This account is equally compatible with the (not unequivocal: Christensen 2002)
topographic evidence of the Goths’ relation to the Gautoi (Procopius) in Scandinavia,
the Swedish Östgötar (cf. Ostrogothae), Gutland / Gotland, etc. (Strid 2010, 2013).
There is agreement on presence of the Goths in the Chernyakhov–Sântana de
Mureș culture in the Moldova-Romania region just north of the Black Sea, at least
from c3 to c5. Unfortunately, everything else, including how they got there, is dis-
puted (e.g. Ionița 1972; Halsall 2007: 133; Kulikowski 2007: 60–8).
The Goths had considerable contact with the Romans.4 Not only are there borrow-
ings from Latin (Jellinek 1926: 179–94; Stefanescu-Draganesti 1982), but many Greek
3 Another interpretation of Jordanes’ Gothiscandza is *Gutisk andja ‘Gothic end/coast’, possibly Gdańsk
(CGG 29; Green 1998: 166f., but see Kortlandt 2001). This is based on identification of the Wielbark cul-
ture (between the Oder and Vistula) with Goths (Urbańczyk 1998; Heather 2010: 104f.; Kaliff 2011) but
archaeology cannot establish ethnicity (Poulter 2007). There is no secure evidence for a Scandinavian
origin of the Goths (Hachmann 1970; Heather 1996: 25–30; Christensen 2002), no runic evidence
(Nielsen 2011; Snædal 2017b), and linguistic parallels between Gothic and Old Norse are inconclusive
(Chs. 7, 8, 11; CGG 30; Rösel 1962: 48–52; Nielsen 1989a: 80–103, 1995, 2002a; Stiles 2013; cf. Scardigli
2002: 555). Gothic is lexically nearest to High German and farthest from Scandinavian (Mańczak 1984,
1987), proving only contact (cf. Penzl 1985: 157f.), Scandinavian innovations (de Vries 1956), or common
retentions (Patrick Stiles, p.c.). For works on the name of the Goths, see Gotica Minora 6 (2006).
4 Early exposure to Latin is indicated by loanwords like Goth. wein ‘wine’, borrowed before the Latin
change of v /w/ to /v/ in the first century (GGS 184; Corazza 1969: 10–13; Green 1998: 213; EIE 22f., 55).
Another possibility is alew* ‘(olive) oil’ (e.g. gen sg alewis Lk 16:6), if from early Lat. *olēwom (GED
26f.) or *oleivom (Francovich Onesti 2011: 200). The problem is that olive oil from Baetica (southern
Spain) is first known to German and British military garrisons via the Rhône–Rhine axis in c1 (EIE 76,
w. lit), by which time the Latin form had long been oleum (Untermann 1954: 391). Hypotheses to salvage
*olēwom via the Celts in Moravia (e.g. Green 1998: 156ff.; Kortlandt 2001) and other alleged intermediar-
ies leave different aspects of the word unexplained (GED 26f.) and are sheer guesses, given the absence of
attestations. For Corazza (1969: 3, 14f.), alew was borrowed along the Vistula in c1/2.
The clue to the history of alew* is provided by Goth. l(a)iwa* ‘lion’: gen pl laiwane Bl 1v.15 (Falluomini
2017: 291) or liwane based on loans into Slavonic (Roland Schuhmann, p.c.). Liwa* is from Lat. leō ‘id.’
(Falluomini 2018b, w. lit). Since leō was itself borrowed (Breyer 1993: 152f.; Biville 1990: 94), the /w/ in
laiwa* presumably came from pre-Goth. *leū / *liū (Lat. /ō/ > Goth. /ū/; cf. Stifter 2010), which, when
inflected, yielded *liw-a(n)- by generalization of the stem */liw/.
1.1 Brief history of the Goths 3
words in Gothic have their Latin form,5 e.g. aíkklesjo ‘congregation’, aíwaggeljo ‘gospel’,
aípistula* ‘letter’ (but Hellenizing aípistaúle in the Epistles), diabulus ‘devil’, drakma*
‘drachma’, a Greek silver coin worth about 25 cents, acc kintu (Mt 5:26) ‘cent’ (VL
*centus; cf. centum ‘100’ Grienberger 1900: 140; Schröder 1925; Corazza 1969: 64), acc
karkara ‘prison’, paúrpura* ‘purple’, skaúrpjono ‘of scorpions’, etc. (Luft 1898a: 296, 300f.;
Elis 1903: 73; Gaebeler 1911: 3f.; Francovich Onesti 2011: 201, 203).
The usual account is that Gothic acquired most of its Latin borrowings in Dacia in
c3/4 (Corazza 1969). Kortlandt (2001) argues that (i) the Goths had direct contact
with Latin speakers along the Danube and encountered Greeks first in Moesia, and
(ii) the Latin-based religious vocabulary points to the Goths entering Moesia from
the west, not the north. This account is by no means unanimously accepted (cf.
Schrijver 2014: 158f.), but can explain (i) the earlier borrowings from Latin, (ii) the
large range of lexical loans, and (iii) contact-induced grammatical innovations
(Stefanescu-Draganesti 1982).
The Ostrogoths occupied the area north of the Black Sea and in the Crimea.
Visigoths settled west of the Black Sea and the Dniepr, and north of the Danube, in the
Roman province of Dacia. In 376, the Visigoths crossed the Danube from Dacia to
Moesia, then Thrace, where they defeated and killed the emperor Valens in 378.
The Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 during the reign [395–410] of Alaric (Goth.
*Alareiks ‘king/ruler of all’) [ca. 370–410]. Theoderic [ca. 454/5–526], Goth. *Þiudareiks
‘people-king/ruler of the tribe’ (Theoderīcus in most c6 Roman sources: Wrede 1891:
51–7), Ostrogothic king of Italy [493–526], grew up in Roman Constantinople. Before
475, he led his people down the Danube from Pannonia to Lower Moesia. Theoderic
entered Italy in 489, and by 490 controlled most of mainland Italy and Sicily. In 493, he
captured Ravenna, established an Ostrogothic empire, and reigned thirty-three years.
In 498, his rule of Italy was recognized by the emperor Anastasius in Constantinople.
When Germanic tribes converted to Christianity, it was Homoian Christianity
(Wolfe 2014). Despite confusion between Homoianism and Arianism (Brown 2007;
Berndt & Steinacher 2014), there was a doctrine that the Father and Son were merely
‘alike’.6 This may be reflected in some Gothic passages (denied by Schäferdiek 2002,
but see Pakis 2008 and the disputes in Berndt & Steinacher 2014) but not others
(Kauffmann 1898; Stutz 1966: 12ff.; Falluomini 2015: 15). There is no evidence for it in
the Bologna fragment (Wolfe 2016, 2017). The opposition between the Arian and
Latin oleum ‘(olive) oil’ had several Vulgar Latin variants, e.g. *oliu(m), *oleo/u(m). Trisyllabic forms are
unstable (§§2.12f.), and *oliu(m) was realized as disyllabic */olju/ (> *oli), *oleu(m) as */oleu/, borrowed
into pre-Gothic as */alēu/ (maintaining the heavy syllable) which, when inflected, yielded alew-is etc.
(§2.13).
5 Latin words in a Greek form also occur, e.g. laigaion (Mk 5:9, 15) = Gk. legeōn for Lat. legiō ‘legion’,
praitoriaun ‘praetorium’, kaisar* ‘Caesar’, maimbrana* ‘parchment’ (Bréal 1889: 629).
6 Also antitrinitarian was Sabellianism (no difference at all between God, the son, and the spirit),
which the Goths rejected: iþ nu ains jah sa sa|ma wesi bi Sabailli|aus insahtai: missaleikaim band|wiþs
namnam: ai|wa stojan jah ni sto|[5.3]jan: sa sama mahte|di: (Sk 5.2.20–5.3.2) ‘but now, if he were one
and the same according to Sabellius’ view, signified by different names, how could this same one judge
and not judge?’ The Christology of Skeireins is body/divine soul, and anti-Sabellian (Wolfe 2013).
4 The Goths and Gothic
Catholic churches has possibly been exaggerated. Schäferdiek (1967, 2014) argues that
there was more cooperation than generally admitted, leading to the union between
the Visigoths of Spain and the Catholic church in 589 (cf. Sullivan 1968). Of the seven
buildings for Arian worship in Ravenna, three survive, including Theoderic’s church
dedicated to St. Martin, now the Basilica di Sant’Apollinare Nuovo (see Falluomini
2015: 28f., w. rich lit).
During the reign of Theoderic, the manuscripts of the Gothic Bible were recopied.
The Gothic documents from Ravenna (§§10.6, 10.7) date to this same period.
In 552/3, the Ostrogoths were driven from Italy. Visigoths in Spain became
Hispanicized. Some (variety of?) Goths remained in the Crimea at least through the
sixteenth century, and probably through the eighteenth, on the evidence of influence
on the Greek dialect spoken there and testimonies (details in Høst 1971, Rousseau
2016: 639–57).
7 The main discussions are Loewe (1902), Schröder (1910), Stearns (1978, 1989), Grønvik (1983), and
Ganina (2011) with (unfortunately old) photographs of the Busbecq documents, discussion of every word
in the corpus, and recent archaeological finds. It is especially useful for words that Busbecq did not con-
sider Germanic. For some additional corrections, see Stiles (2005). Nucciarelli (1991) reconstructs eight
lexical domains of the text: body parts and ornaments, military, culinary, family and aging, astronomical
and weather, house and household, personal attributes, and verbs of human activities in the infinitive.
Thanks to Wayne Harbert, Rob Howell, and Patrick Stiles for detailed discussion of this section.
Crimean Gothic and Wulfila’s Gothic are distinguished here as ‘Crimean’ and ‘Gothic’ respectively. For
historical writings on Crimean Gothic, see Vol. 4 (2005) of Gotica Minora (ed. Christian T. Petersen).
1.2 Crimean Gothic 5
2016: 33; cf. EDPC 23, EDL 20, EDPG 31f.]; Hamp’s North Central European *ablu-
‘sorb’ [e.g. 2010] was challenged already by Adams 1985), schieten ‘to shoot an arrow’,
schlipen ‘to sleep’ (Goth. slepan), kommen ‘to come’ (Goth. qiman), singhen ‘to sing’
(Goth. siggwan), lachen ‘to laugh’ (cf. Goth. (uf)-hlohjan ‘make laugh’), eriten [= criten]
‘to cry’ (Goth. gretan), geen ‘to go’ (vs. Goth. gaggan), breen ‘to roast’ (ON bræða),
schuualth ‘death’ (cf. Goth. swiltan ‘die’), statz ‘land’ (Goth. staþs*), ada ‘egg’ (§2.14),
ano [= (h)ano] ‘rooster’ (Goth. hana).
Schröder (1910) and Stearns (1978) suggest that kor ‘grain’, fisct ‘fish’, hoef ‘head’,
thurn ‘door’, were errors for korn ‘grain’ (Goth. kaurn), fisc ‘fish’ (Goth. fisks*), hoeft
‘head’ (Goth. haubiþ), thur ‘door’ (Goth. daur). For stein ‘star’, it is possible that two
words were intended: stein ‘stone’ (Goth. stains) and stern ‘star’ (Goth. stairno*).
Most of the numerals have a very Germanic appearance: ita, tua, tria, fyder (Goth.
fidwor), fyuf [= finf ], seis (Goth. saihs), seuene (Goth. sibun), athe (Goth. ahtau), nyne
(Goth. niun), thiine (Goth. taihun), thiinita ‘11’, thunetua [= thiinetua? i.e. thiine + tua =
Goth. twai] ‘12’, thunetria [= thiinetria?] ‘13’, etc.; stega ‘20’ (cf. Goth. tigjus*, OFris.
stīge), trei-thyen ‘30’ (Goth. þreis-tigjus*), furdei-thien ‘40’. From Iranian are sada ‘100’
(cf. Pers. sad) and hazer ‘1000’ < MPers. hazār ‘thousand’ (Loewe 1902: 15–19, w. lit).
Some elicited Crimean forms appeared to Busbecq not to be Germanic although
they are, e.g. iel ‘life, health’, ieltsch ‘living, healthy’ (cf. Goth. hails ‘well’), iel vburt
[= vvurt?] ‘may it be well’ (Goth. (*)hail waurþi), schuos ‘fiancee’ (error for schnos
‘daughter-in-law’ [Grønvik 1983: 27; Patrick Stiles, p.c.] or related to Goth. swes ‘prop-
erty’ [Ganina, p. 147, w. lit]), menus [= *mem(m)s, menns?] ‘meat’ (Goth. mimz), fers
‘man’ (Goth. fair us ‘world’ Hamp 1973a; cf. Ganina, p. 119f.), baar ‘boy’ (Goth. barn),
ael ‘stone’ (Goth. hallus*), mycha ‘two-edged sword’ (Goth. meki ‘short sword’, prob
borrowed into Gmc. GED 250), rintsch ‘mountain’ (cf. GED 286).
Non-Germanic are marzus ‘marriage’ (cf. (?) Lat. marītus ‘husband’), telich ‘foolish’
(< Turkish telyg), stap ‘goat’ (cf. Alb. tsap, Slav. *capŭ, etc. ‘he-goat’: Ganina, p. 150f., w.
lit), schediit ‘light’ (cf. (?) Avestan xšaēta- ‘light’), cadariou ‘soldier’ (for cadarion, from
(Lat.-)Gk. kenturíōn ‘centurion’ Menner 1937; less likely is Gk. kontárion ‘spear’).
Unclear are atochta ‘bad’ (perhaps Goth. *at-ogan), lista ‘too little’ (cf. OE læst
‘least’, but see GED 233f., Ganina, p. 221), borrotsch ‘wish’ or ‘joy’? (cf. Goth. ga-
baurjoþum Lk 8:14 ‘by pleasures’; Lat. voluntās may be for voluptās ‘pleasure’ but see
Stearns 1978: 131, GED 78).
Inflected forms include tzo [v]varthata ‘you made’, ies [v]varthata ‘he made’; cf.
Goth. waurhta, perhaps plus Goth. þata ‘that’ (Stearns, pp. 44, 129). For malthata
‘I say’ suggestions include mal-thata ‘I say that’ (Stearns, p. 107), pret maþlida to Goth.
maþljan* (Loewe 1902: 13; cf. Matzel 1989: 89f.), and mathla-(i)ta ‘I say it’ (Rousseau
2016: 636). See Ganina (pp. 135ff., 215–20). For kilemschkop ‘drink up your cup (kop?)’
there are many guesses in Ganina (p. 131ff.).
The forms in -(t)z probably represent a misperception of /þ/, e.g. goltz = Goth.
gulþ* ‘gold’, statz ‘land’ = Goth. staþs* (dat staþa) ‘shore’, tzo = Goth. þu ‘you’ (Stearns,
p. 85; cf. Ganina, pp. 103, 110). A genuine affricate has sometimes been posited (e.g.
Rousseau 2016: 636) but seems unlikely.
6 The Goths and Gothic
Crimean is East Germanic, parallel to but not directly descended from Wulfila’s
Gothic (Zadorožnyj 1960; Costello 1973; Stearns 1978; Ganina 2011; Wayne Harbert,
p.c.). A West Germanic dialect influenced by Gothic (Grønvik 1983, 1995) would
entail a very large number of direct borrowings from Gothic. For instance, Gothic and
Crimean alone have a /d/ in *fedwōr ‘four’ (Goth. fidwor/fidur-, Crim. fyder) and /z/
where the rest of Germanic has rhotacism (cf. Loewe 1902: 13f.; Ringe 2012: 34; Stiles
2013: 15); cf. Crim. ies, Goth. is ‘he’ vs. OHG (etc.) er ‘id.’ (Stearns 1978: 140, GED 204).
Based on mine for Goth. mena ‘moon’, mycha for meki ‘sword’, plut for bloþ ‘blood’,
stul for stols ‘seat’, etc., Crimean seems to have raised the long mid vowels.
Moreover, Crim. ada ‘egg’ (nom pl) has Verschärfung (§2.14) of the Gothic kind
(Ganina, p. 108f.), and forms with -d- do not exist in North Germanic (ON egg) or
West Germanic (OHG ei ‘egg’) (cf. Stiles 2013: 7).
Several words may contain Goth. -ata (§3.7), e.g. gadeltha ‘beautiful’ (cf. gatilata*
‘fitting’?), vvichtgata [= vvitgata?] ‘white’ (cf. eitata*), a precise isogloss with Gothic
(Loewe 1902: 21f., 35; Zadorožnyj 1960: 214; Stearns 1978: 118f.; Ganina 2011: 226).
Wulfila’s Gothic appears to have innovations that are absent in Crimean. One is
preservation of /u/ before /r/, as in Crim. thur{n} (influenced by Flemish deur?) vs.
Goth. daur ‘door’ (unless a different word ‘towergate’ [Høst 1985: 43f.]), but note korn
(= Goth. kaurn). Crimean may have a- umlaut in goltz vs. Goth. gulþ* ‘gold’ (cf. Stearns
1989: 180ff.), but the similarity to Dutch goud / gold is striking (Rob Howell, p.c.).
Differences between Biblical Gothic and recorded Crimean are not surprising, given
that (i) at least ten centuries separate the two, (ii) the informants may not have been
native Crimean Gothic speakers, (iii) Flemish misperceptions are rampant (e.g. tria vs.
Goth. þrija ‘three’), and (iv) transcription errors abound (goltz for gulþ* ‘gold’ etc.).
(1)
1
Despite eight interpretations in the Kiel Rune Project (checked 30 October 2017), the
inscription is generally agreed to read tilarīds ‘attacker’, ‘goal-rider’, ‘goal-pursuer’, or
the like; cf. OE tilian ‘to attain’, ON ríða ‘to ride’ (Antonsen 2002: 57, 214; Nedoma
1.4 Wulfila and Gothic documents 7
2010: 14–20, 43f.). The inscription has been thought to be East Germanic because of
the -s and the location, but movable objects can come from anywhere. If it is runic, it
may be non-Gothic (Snædal 2011a; Nielsen 2011, w. lit). Must (1955) and Snædal (2017b)
insist that the letters are not runic but from a Greek epichoric alphabet. Snædal reads
, i.e. Tigúrios, a Celtic tribe in Switzerland. Must’s interpretation as Illyrian
Tilurios or Tilarios is also possible.
Around the middle of the fourth century, an apparently Ostrogothic inscription
was made on the golden ring of Pietroassa (Pietroasele, Romania).
(2) gutaniowihailag
gutanī ō(þal) wī(h) hailag
‘possession of the Goths, sacred, holy’
The Kiel Rune Project (checked 30 October 2017) lists fifteen interpretations, but the
reading in (2), defended by Bammesberger (1994: 5f.) and MacLeod & Mees (2006:
173), is confirmed by a republished photo (Svärdström 1972: 119; Mees 2002: 78f.;
Nedoma 2010: 30). Whether Gutanio ‘(of) Gothic women’ (MacLeod & Mees 2006:
173) or gutani o remains in dispute. If the latter, the first word can be Gutani (Goth.
*Gutanē ‘of the Goths’), hence the old interpretation in (2) defended by Nedoma
(2010: 29ff., 44f.). The letter o in that case stands for its name *ōþal ‘inheritance’ (§2.1).
The last word is likely hailag ‘holy’ (not in Wulfila’s text), and wi(h) may be wīh ‘sanc-
tuary’ or ‘sacred’, comparable to Wulfila’s weihs ‘holy’, weiha (2x) ‘priest’. Nothing pre-
cludes Ostrogothic, but Ebbinghaus (1990) finds the evidence unconvincing, and
Snædal (2017b) claims the inscription is Old High German.
For the rest, the reader is referred to Nedoma (2010) and Snædal’s contributions.
8 Since all of the basic information is collected in Munkhammar (2011b), other sources are cited here
for convenience. Munkhammar (e.g. 2011d: 41) prefers the dates 311–81 for Wulfila. Also useful are the
summaries in Kirchner (1879) and Plate (1931).
8 The Goths and Gothic
for Gothia (Goth. Gutþiuda* Cal 1.1, 1.7) in eastern Dacia (Vasiliev 1936: 12ff.; Kokowski
2007). He preached for forty years in Greek, Latin, and Gothic (Auxentius; cf. Burton
2002). During that time, he began his translation of the Gothic Bible, most likely in
the preparation of sermons. The more polished portions of the translation, especially
in the Gospel of John (§1.7), could reflect their use in sermons over the years.
Persecuted by Athanaric and other unChristianized Goths, Wulfila led his people
across the Danube in 347/8. When the Visigoths became Christianized is disputed
(Schäferdiek 1979a, b), and initially involved Gothicization of Christians (Schäferdiek
1990b: 38; 1992: 24f.).
Around 369 (traditional date) Wulfila completed religious texts for the Goths of
Moesia, or Gothi minores, who remained in the area for centuries (cf. Velkov 1989).
Whether or not Wulfila translated the Bible is disputed. Auxentius mentions that
Wulfila wrote several treatises and many commentaries but does not mention a Bible
translation (Griepentrog 1990: 33ff., w. lit). This may imply that others were involved
(Gryson 1990: 13).
Testimonies exist that Wulfila translated the Bible. One is by Cassiodorus (translat-
ing Socrates): ‘Vulphilas, bishop of the Goths, invented the Gothic letters [i.e. the
alphabet] and translated the divine scriptures into that language’.9
The ninth-century theologian Wala(h)frid Strabo of Reichenau reports that
studiōsī . . . dīvīnōs librōs . . . trānstulērunt ‘(a team of) scholars translated the sacred
books’ into Gothic.10 Leont’ev (1964) reviews the church historians and their com-
mentators, and claims that there is no conclusive evidence that Wulfila translated the
Bible. Nevertheless, the seemingly discrepant testimonies are not necessarily contra-
dictory. Auxentius does not rule out involvement of more scholars, and the statement
by Cassiodorus, known for his curt, unelaborated report style, can be shorthand, the
pragmatic assumption being that Wulfila did not translate the Bible alone (§§1.7f.).
9 Vulphilās Gothōrum episcopus litterās Gothicās adinvēnit, et scrīptūrās dīvīnās in eam convertit lin-
guam (Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 8.13.3, http://monumenta
.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Cassiodorus&rumpfid=Cassiodorus,%20Historia%20Ecclesiastica,%2008,%20%
20%2013&nf=1). Philostorgios (Ecclesiastical History. 2.5 reported by Photius) also asserted that
‘Ourphilas’ translated the whole Bible except for the Books of Kings, but Hebrews was not translated (§1.5).
10 De eccles. rerum exordiis vii, in Monumenta Germaniae historica, Legum sectio II: Capitularia regum
Francorum 2.481 (cf. Maßmann 1857: lvii; Odefey 1908: 22; Leont’ev 1964: 275).
1.5 The Gothic corpus 9
Over two-thirds of these are of Indo-European provenance and about fourteen per-
cent have cognates only within Germanic (Falluomini 2018b).
Codex Argenteus
Most of the Gothic corpus is in the codex Argenteus (now in Uppsala), produced
ca. 520 in Ravenna (Munkhammar 2011a; cf. Ebbinghaus 1997). The ‘silver codex’ was
first edited by Franciscus Junius in 1665 (see Munkhammar 2017). It is a deluxe manu-
script, written in silver and gold ink (containing real silver and gold) on purple vel-
lum, dyed with orchil or folium (Munkhammar 2018). The letters are large, very
regular, and easy to read. Each section begins with a partial or entire line in gold let-
ters, and each Gospel opens with several lines in gold. Acker (1994: 34) describes the
“artistry in alternation of gold and silver, the Eusebian canon markers, the big letter
sections, the framing of the canon tables at the bottom of each page . . . ” Production of
such a codex was very expensive, and presupposed great importance of the text.11
Cod. Arg. is written in two hands (visible in Friesen & Grape 1927 and more recent
photographs), with differences between Matthew–John (Scribe 1) and Luke–Mark
(Scribe 2). The latter features more slender and angular letters and straighter lines
than the former (Friesen & Grape 1927: 56).
Cod. Arg. contains 187 of the original 336 parchment leaves (Friesen’s calculation).
The last leaf, the Speyer fragment, discovered in 1970, contains the long ending of
Mark 16:9–20S (S = Speyer) (Szemerényi 1972; Garbe 1972; Hamp 1973b; Scardigli
1973: 302–80; Zatočil 1980; Stutz 1971, 1973, 1991). The Speyer subscript has the only
syllabified text in the Gothic corpus: ai-wag-gel-jo . . . us-tauh wul-þus þus wei-ha g(u)
þ ‘the Gospel . . . has ended; glory to you, holy God’.
Codices Ambrosiani
Most of the remainder of the translation of the Gothic Bible is in the codd. Ambr. A–D (E
is Skeireins), all palimpsests from but probably not all written at the Benedictine Bobbio
Abbey in northern Italy [c7/8] (Scardigli 1994: 527f.; cf. Van den Hout 1952), now
housed in Milan, Turin, and Vatican City (Munkhammar 2011d: 47; Falluomini 2015).
A (102 leaves + cod. Taurinensis below) contains parts of the Epistles, 44 margin
glosses, and, on the next to last page, a fragment of a Gothic liturgical calendar of
martyrs (Ebbinghaus 1975), probably dating to c5 (Schäferdiek 1988, 1990b: 36).
The calendar contains the only attestation of (ana) gutþiudai (Cal 1.1, 1.7) ‘(in) Gothia,
(in) the land of the Goths’ (Ebbinghaus 1976a: 140; cf. Friedrichsen 1927: 90f.; GED
163f.). The feast days marked on the calendar are non-western.
Commentary and discussion: Loewe (1922a), Ebbinghaus (1978), Reichert (1989),
Schmeja (1998), Landau (2006).
11 For details, see Munkhammar (2011a, 2018), Staats (2011), Snædal & Lock (2018). Online facsimile
edition: http://ub.uu.se/about-the-library/exhibitions/codex-argenteus/about-the-project/. Photos: http://
www.alvin-portal.org/alvin/imageViewer.jsf ?pid=alvin-record%3A60279&dsId=ATTACHMENT-
0001&cid=1/.
10 The Goths and Gothic
B (78 leaves) contains parts of the Epistles (less Romans and Philemon), including
2 Corinthians, the only book preserved in its entirety in the extant Gothic corpus.
Copies of the Pauline Epistles (less Hebrews, which was probably not by Paul and
never translated; see Falluomini 2015: 143), especially codd. Ambr. A, B, attest some
textual modifications but share nineteen errors that point to a common ancestor
(Friedrichsen 1939: 62–127; see also Bernhardt 1874b), despite differences in stichom-
etry in the immediate sources (Marold 1890: 10). Cod. Ambr. B contains no glosses.
12 The Gothic translation of the Old Testament was based on the revision of the Septuagint ascribed to
Lucian (†311/312). This was the version used by Arian Christians in Asia Minor and Greece (Streitberg
1919: xxxii; Friedrichsen 1926: 8; Elsakkers 2005: 44, 52, w. lit).
13 Prior to Gothic citations of Exodus, the existence of a Gothic version was posited on circumstantial
evidence, such as presence of an ancient law on abortion in the Leges Visigothorum 6.3.2, with a distinc-
tion between a formed and unformed fetus, which matches only the Lucianic Septuagint-based Vetus
Latina versions of Ex 21:22f. (Elsakkers 2005).
1.5 The Gothic corpus 11
that Wulfila translated Skeireins. This idea is generally rejected because of the belief
that Skeireins is later and too divergent (e.g. Del Pezzo 1973a; Ebel 1978; GG 10f.; see
the discussion in Helm 1958), but a contemporaneous work is plausible with team
involvement. In that event, it is possible that the stylistic differences from the Gothic
Bible are due to different translators, the different text type and linguistic content, or
both (cf. Bennett 1959b).
Codex Carolinus
Cod. Carolinus [c6b] in Wolfenbüttel is one of two Gothic-Latin bilinguals. It is a pal-
impsest with four leaves containing about 42 verses of Romans 11–15 (Kauffmann 1911b;
Falluomini 1999). The Gothic text on the left is typical of bilingual works in which the
language for the intended audience is on the right. These were probably written by
Goths for Latin-speaking Goths or Arian Romans (Falluomini 1999, 2015: 29f., 36ff.).
Codex Gissensis
The second of the two Gothic-Latin bilinguals (Gothic text on the left, Latin on the
right) is the flood-destroyed cod. Gissensis [c6]. Only photos remain of the double
parchment leaf, revealing a few final words of the Gothic column (Lk 23:11–14, 24:13–17,
signaled Lk Gissensis) and initial words of the Vetus Latina text with some Vulgate
readings (Lk 23:3–6, 24:5–9). Editions and reconstructions: Glaue & Helm (1910),
Kuhlmann (1994), Snædal (2003), Falluomini (2010b).
Codex Taurinensis
Cod. Taurinensis (Turin National University Library) is part of cod. Ambr. A and con-
tains four leaves with fragments of Galatians and Colossians (Maßmann 1868).
Gotica Veronensia
Gotica Veronensia [c5e/6b] consists of 27+ margin glosses in Gothic (about thirteen of
which are legible) to the Latin homilies by Maximin the Arian. Gothic notes indicate
the content of the homilies (Kraus 1929; Marchand 1973b; Gryson 1982; Snædal
2002b), e.g. bi horos jah motarjos [for bi horans* jah motarjans*] (19.30) dē adulterīs et
publicānīs ‘concerning adulterers and money-changers’ (Kraus, p. 211).
2017). Some words and passages (especially of the Old Testament) are previously
unattested. Verses parallel to those in cod. Arg. do not differ in substance, but there are
differences in their arrangement, use, introduction, and coherence (see §§10.9–10.13).
Special manuscript properties are discussed in Falluomini (2016c).
Ostrogothic deeds
Nonliterary documents are embedded in two Latin papyri with some Gothic signa-
tures (Scardigli 1973: 269–301; Tjäder 1982), ultimately from Ravenna (Penzl 1977).
One is a land transfer title deed from Arezzo [538], of which only a copy from 1731 is
extant. The remaining four are debt-settlement deeds from Naples [551], differing
only in names and titles (http://www.gotica.de/urkunden.html, NaplesDeed).
Crimean graffiti
Five ninth- or tenth-century graffiti discovered in 2015 in a church near Sevastopol in
the Crimea feature some previously unattested quotes from the Gothic Bible, e.g.
Psalm 77:14+ (Vinogradov & Korobov 2015, 2018; Korobov & Vinogradov 2016). The
language is very close to Wulfilian Gothic, and in the old sigmatic alphabet (§2.2).
Some new forms occur, e.g. sildaleika ‘wonders, miracles’ in the otherwise nonextant
þu is g(u)þ waurkjands sildaleika (Ps 77:14) ‘you are the God working wonders’
(Korobov & Vinogradov 2016: 145f.).
Gotica Parisina
This manuscript [c8e/9b] transmits seven Gothic Biblical names, six from the
genealogy of Jesus in Lk 3. The names compared to their equivalent in the cod. Arg.
are: Laiueis (Arg. Laiwweis 3:24, 29, 5.29), Mailkeis (= Arg. 3:24), Zauraubabelis (Arg.
Zauraubabilis 3:27), Airmodamis (= Arg. 3:28), Simaion (Arg. Swmaions 3:30),
Aileiaizeris (Arg. Aileiaizairis 3:29), Paitrus (= Arg. passim). See the commentary in
Snædal (2015a).
Tabella Hungarica
A lost lead tablet [c53] from Hungary (the tabella Hungarica), probably an amulet, has
part of John 17:11–12 (Harmatta 1997; Streitberg & Scardigli 2000: 507–14; Falluomini
2015: 41, w. lit).
1.6 The Bible translation 13
Minor attestations
The smaller documents include a few potential runic inscriptions (§1.3) and an epi-
gram containing a few ‘Vandal’ words in cod. Salmasianus [ca. 800], p. 141:
inter eils goticum scapiamatziaiadrincan. The first part is ‘amid Gothic hails!’ After
that the text may read: *Skapja! *Matja jah *drigkan! ‘(Hail!) Waiter! Food and drink!’
(Snædal 2009b, taking matja, drincan as nouns). Schuhmann (forthcoming, §1.2.3.k)
follows another tradition in taking the words as Gothic and matzia ia drincan as
(substantivized) infinitives matja(n) jah drigkan [to eat and drink] ‘food and drink!’.
Kleiner (2018) criticizes all accounts and takes scapia as a 1sg verb: ‘amidst Gothic
shouting, I make food and drink(s)’ or ‘amidst greetings, I make Gothic food and
drink(s)’.14 For textual criticism see Scardigli (1974).
There are several other fragments, borrowings, names, and margin glosses that
reveal a tradition of Gothic textual exegesis (Plate 1931; Stutz 1972: 381).
Forty-four margin glosses appear in cod. Ambr. A, perhaps in different hands (cf.
Scardigli 1994: 530). The remaining 15 glosses (plus one, possibly later, on Mk 2:13) are
in cod. Arg.: ten on Luke, four on Mark (Scribe 2), one on Matthew (itemized in Falluomini
2015: 46). The Latin glosses also bear witness to scholarly activity with the manuscript
(details in Acker 1994).
A complete list of Gothic sources and texts, less the recent discoveries, can be found
on the Wulfila Project website and in Snædal (2013a: vol. 1). For descriptions, see also
Plate (1931), Stutz (1966), Gryson (1990), and, for the manuscripts, Scardigli (1994),
Rendboe (2008), Falluomini (2015, 2016c).
to Wulfila’s sources or team of translators (Metlen 1932: 22f., 25; Friedrichsen 1939:
259, 1961a: 103f.; Barasch 1973: passim; Gryson 1990: 13; Falluomini 2015: 147).
Some word and form distributions are translation prompted (Regan 1970, 1972). To
illustrate variation due to different Greek meanings, four Gothic words translate Gk.
asthenē s: lasiws (2Cor 10:10B) ‘weak (in body)’, siuks (Jn 6:2 siukaim) ‘(physically)
sick, diseased’, unmahteigs (Rom 14:1A unmahteigana) ‘weak, unfirm (in faith)’,
unhails* (Lk 9:2 unhailans) ‘unhealthy, sick; mentally ill’ (Barasch 1973: 132, 140f.).
Gk. dógma is translated gagrefts (Lk 2:1) ‘decree’, ragin [acc] (Col 2:14B raginam)
‘legal demand’, garaideins (Eph 2:15A/B garaideinim) ‘ordinance’ (Barasch 1973: 145).
Goth. biuþs* translates Gk. trápeza, Lat. mēnsa ‘table’ only in the sense of ‘dining
table’ (Mk 7:28, Lk 16:21, 1Cor 10:21A (2x), Neh 5:17). The tables of the money changers
(Mk 11:15) are rendered with mesa (Rosén 1984: 371–8).
The intersection of two Gothic words can translate one Greek word, as in ei samo
hugjaima (( jah samo fraþjaima)) (Phil 3:16A/B) ‘that we may be disposed (as) one and
understand (as) one’ (cf. Ratkus 2018c, and see sama in App.) for Gk. tò autò phroneĩn
[to mind the same] ‘to be of one mind’. Since jah samo fraþjaima has no basis in the
Vorlage (cf. Ulf. 810, Marold 1883: 65ff.), Streitberg (1919: 375) follows Bernhardt (1875)
in assuming that the addition was a margin gloss that got incorporated into the text.
Some variations can be just stylistic, such as avoidance of the same Gothic word in
close succession (GrGS 284–90; Groeper 1915: 85ff.; Kauffmann 1920: 181–6; Stutz 1972:
380; Falluomini 2015: 82–8). Interpretive variations in (lexical) aspect, viewpoint, theo-
logical factors, etc., also occur, as noted by many (e.g. Götti 1974; Lloyd 1979).
A stylistic feature that pervades the translation is repetition, of syllables, words, and
phrases. Hundreds of examples can be found in Kauffmann (1920), e.g. sumanz-uþ
þan praufetuns, sumanz-uþ þan aiwaggelistans, sumanz-uþ þan hairdjans jah laisar-
jans (Eph 4:11A) ‘and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and
teachers’ (Kauffmann 1920: 28). Most of these stylistic features are also characteristic
of the Greek and Latin versions, although not necessarily in the same passages.
One type of syllable repetition is homoioteleuton (same ending), e.g. jabai o
godeino, jabai o hazeino (Phil 4:8B) ‘if (there are) any virtues, if (there are) any
praises’ (Kauffmann 1920: 23).
The main type of syllable repetition is alliteration (and figura etymologica §4.8), as
in wulfos wilwandans (Mt 7:15, Bl 2v. 17f.) ‘ravaging wolves’, þwahla watins in waurda
(Eph 5:26A) ‘with a washing by water in the word’, hanins hruk (Mt 26:75) ‘the roost-
er’s crowing’, ((haurnjans haurnjandans)) (Mt 9:23) ‘flutists playing flutes’, wintru wisa
(1Cor 16:6A/B) ‘I’ll stay the winter’, lustu leikis (Gal 5:16B) ‘lust of the flesh’, liþiwe leikis
lasiwostai (1Cor 12:22A) ‘of the limbs of the body (that seem to be) weakest’, malma
mareins (Rom 9:27A) ‘sand of the sea’, in beista balwaweseins (1Cor 5:8A) ‘in the leaven
of malice’, faihu-friks ‘greedy’, gasti-gods ‘hospitable’ (§7.7), etc. (GrGS 290f.;
Stolzenburg 1905: 375; Kapteijn 1911: 341ff.; Kauffmann 1920: 169–73; Ambrosini 1967;
Toporova 1989: 73ff.; Wolfe 2006; Rousseau 2012: 34f., 152f.).
Some examples have the properties of Germanic alliterative verse (Kauffmann
1920: 171ff.), e.g. frauja, jū fūls ist; fidurdogs auk ist (Jn 11:39) ‘Lord, by now he is foul;
1.7 Lexical localization 15
for he is four days (dead)’, waurdam weihan du ni waihtai daug (2Tim 2:14B) ‘verbal
quarreling is useful for nothing’, harjis himinakundis hazjandane guþ (Lk 2:13) ‘(a
multitude) of heavenly host praising God’.
The Gothic Bible is not uniform for a variety of reasons. Ignoring copy errors, these
may include scribal preferences (Friedrichsen 1926, 1930), revisions in Ravenna (cf.
Stutz 1972), and dialect mixture (Marchand 1956b). Some variations are due to style
(see above), to different Greek versions (not all extant), to ambiguities of Greek words
and capturing nuances (Regan 1970, 1972; Barasch 1973; Francini 2009), but many
subtleties are ignored (Wolfe 2018b). The zealous attempts to attribute Gothic transla-
tion variations, or departures from the Greek, to different Latin versions (e.g. Marold
1881a–83, Friedrichsen 1926), are unjustified (e.g. Burkitt 1926; Ratkus 2018a). The
influence may have been (in part) the other way around (§1.9). Finally, some variations
may be due to different translators (Friedrichsen 1961a: 103–11; Griepentrog 1990:
33ff.; Falluomini 2005: 312; Ratkus 2016, 2018a; cf. Jellinek 1926: 10f.).15
The usual arguments regarding one or more translators are aprioristic, like that of
Munkhammar (2011d: 47):
Many commentators have expressed scepticism about Wulfila’s having translated the
entire Bible. The principal argument is probably that time limitations would have
made this impossible. His other responsibilities were extensive, and his time and
situation were stormy and unpredictable. But there have certainly been other whole
Bible translations that came to be under extremely difficult conditions.
The next sections present some of the localization evidence for different translators.
Different word densities may reflect multiple translators. There are differences from
one book to another and even within books. For instance, ‘high priest’ (Gk. arkh-
iereús) is rendered many different ways in Gothic (§7.3), including a hapax compound
ufar-gudja [over-priest] (§7.6)—attempts to imitate the Greek model (Kind 1901: 20f.;
Wolfe 2018b) and capture the ambiguity of arkhiereús (Burkitt 1926; Ratkus 2018a).
Mark 14 has only forms of (sa) auhumista gudja ‘(the) highest priest’, despite reference
to different kinds of priests, while John 18 has a large amount of variation, and syncopated
15 Griepentrog (1990: 18) also suggests that different Gothic translations of the Bible existed in differ-
ent manuscripts. The idea of different translators is less controversial than that of a collation and editing
of multiple manuscripts. Of course, if the different translators worked more-or-less independently, they
would have had separate pieces of parchment, which got collated into a single edition. That is not the same
as different translations that got edited by pick and choose in the end. Some differences between Skeireins
and its target passages (Del Pezzo 1973a; Falluomini 2016a) could signal differences among Gothic manu-
scripts rather than (or as well as) variants in the Greek Vorlage, but the identities that emerge in the
Bologna fragment and the Crimean graffiti do not support the kinds of differences that one might expect
among independent Gothic translations of the Bible. In short, the idea that each translator had his own
parchment is speculative enough. Anything beyond that is far outside the realm of verifiability.
16 The Goths and Gothic
auhmist- is confined to Luke (3:2, 4:29, 19:47) but auhumist- occurs at Lk 20:19, 23:13G.
Groeper (1915: 19) attributes to “the Gothic John” a creative translation technique.
Ratkus (2018a) argues for different translators and that John is the most refined. He sup-
ports this conclusion with lexical, morphological, and syntactic details.16 Even
phonologically, the translator of John sets himself apart, for instance, in being the only
one to write pasxa ‘Passover’ (§2.2) vs. paska elsewhere (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.).
The distribution of ‘devil’ is complicated (cf. Weinhold 1870: 7f.; Groeper 1915: 39–42;
Laird 1940: 174–82; Ganina 2001: 30–44; Wolfe 2018b). Forms of diabulus occur in
Luke (6x), Skeireins (3x), Ephesians (1x dupl), Bl 2v.19, and diabaul- in John (2x),
Bl 2r.22f. Forms of unhulþa are found in Luke (4x), Matthew (1x), and the Epistles:
Eph (2x, 1 dupl), 1Cor (1x), 1Tim (3x, 1 dupl), 2Tim (1x dupl). The Gospels prefer forms
of feminine unhulþo: Mt 5x, Mk 15x, Lk 12x, Jn 7x. Luke alone uses all three. Skeireins
has only diabulus. Gen sg diabulaus is glossed unhulþins at Eph 6:11A, and unhulþons
is glossed skohsla at Lk 8:27. Otherwise skohsl* occurs 5x (Mt 8:31, 1Cor 10:20A 2x,
10:21A 2x). Finally, there is also a feminine acc pl diabulos (1Tim 3:11A).
The words for ‘preach (the gospel)’ (or ‘bring good tidings’) are diversely distrib-
uted (Weinhold 1870: 16f.; Kind 1901: 17ff.; Stolzenburg 1905: 20: Groeper 1915: 31–7;
Van der Meer 1929: 290f.). Borrowed aiwaggeljan* is a hapax (Gal 4:13A). The most
generic term is merjan (Ganina 2001: 148ff.), preferred in the Epistles (23x; 11x in 1/2
Corinthians alone) and Mark (12x) along with gateihan* (6x). The latter is especially
preferred in Luke (11x), where wailamerjan also occurs 7x (otherwise only 1x in
Matthew and 5x in the Epistles). The most interesting overlap is at 2Cor 1:19 with mer-
jada ‘was preached’ in MS A and wailamerjada in B. The hapaxes gaspillon*, þiuþspil-
lon*, and wailaspillon* are exclusive to Luke. Spillon* occurs in Luke (1x), Mark (2x),
Romans (1x), and Nehemiah (1x). Matthew uses only gateihan* (2x), merjan (3x), and
wailamerjan (1x), John only gateihan* (4x), and Skeireins only merjan (1x). Luke is
frequently an outlier (Gaebeler 1911: 30). The main passages are cited in Grünwald
(1910: 10–17).
Blasphemy seems to have been a novel concept.17 Three different nouns occur: ana-
qiss (§7.7) in Colossians and 1Timothy, naiteins* (§8.15) in Mark and Luke, wajamereins
(§8.15) in Matthew, Mark, Ephesians (Kind 1901: 15ff.). These correspond to verbs:
anaqiþan* (1Cor 10:30A) ‘denounce, blaspheme’, ganaitjan* (Mk 12:4) ‘insult, dis-
honor’, wajamerjan (10x, 3 dupl, never in Luke) ‘revile, slander, blaspheme’ (Grünwald
1910: 37; Wolfe 2006: 207f.; 2018b).
Praising (Gk. doxázein ‘think; extol; praise, glorify’) is split among several Gothic
verbs (Weinhold 1870: 13; Grünwald 1910: 39f.; Freudenthal 1959; Zagra 1969; Francini
2009: 107f.). The most is hauhjan ‘exalt’ (25x), but mikiljan* ‘make great, glorify’
16 It is perhaps not surprising that the translation of John is the most refined, since the Greek version is
the most refined of the Gospels. Assuming that other Gothic commentaries were made, one may speculate
that the reason Skeireins was preserved at all is because it involved John.
17 A similar situation exists in Old English for this and many other terms. Pons-Sanz (Forthcoming)
notes that many terms are used to render ‘blasphemy’ but the concept had no legal status and is not men-
tioned in Anglo-Saxon legal codes.
1.8 Morphological and syntactic localization 17
occurs 11x in this sense. At Jn 12:23 sweraidau (to sweran* ‘honor’) translates doxasthẽi
‘should be glorified’ (cf. PPP gasweraiþs Jn 12:16, gasweraids Jn 13:31), and at Lk 18:43
awiliudonds (awiliudon ‘thank’) renders doxázōn ‘praising’. Finally, with wulþags*
‘extraordinary’ there is periphrastic ni was wulþag þata wulþago (2Cor 3:10A/B) ‘the
glorious was not glorious’, for Gk. ou dedóxastai tò dedoxasménon ‘the glorified is not
(anymore) glorious’ (Freudenthal 1959: 17).
For healing (Gk. therapeúein ‘treat; heal’), (ga)hailjan occurs in Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, but (ga)le(i)kinon only in Luke (6x), where (ga)hailjan more often translates
iãsthai ‘heal, cure’ (5x) or iāthẽnai ‘be healed; recover’ (3x) (Stolzenburg 1905: 21f.).
For ‘synagogue’, Matthew uses gaqumþs* ‘gathering together’ (§8.9), which is rare in
John (2x) and Luke (1x). Borrowed swnagoge* occurs in Luke (10x), Mark (6x), and
John (3x), never in Matthew (cf. Wolfe 2018b).
Laþons has entirely different meanings in Luke and the Epistles. In the Epistles, it
has its etymological meaning ‘calling’ (9x, 5 dupl), of the calling by/to God/Christ,
while in Luke it means ‘redemption’ (2:38) and ‘consolation’ (2:25) (§8.15).
Although some Christian terms, such as ‘church’, ‘deacon’, ‘angel’, were known to the
Goths before Wulfila (Jellinek 1923: 443f.; Lühr 1985: 139f., w. lit), some concepts were
necessarily new. Weinhold (1870) and Kind (1901) emphasize that it is not surprising
that different calques and explanatory compounds were experimented with in an
attempt to establish satisfactory translations. Groeper (1915) and Kauffmann (1920:
186–91) make a similar point regarding the many synonyms for technical Christian
terms, but attribute them to stylistic and other factors. After reviewing major discrep-
ancies in Luke, Groeper (1915: 102f.) leaves open the idea of a different translator. Piras
(2007: 47) is convinced that another translator is likely.
More significant than lexical variation, much of which can be stylistic or due to trans-
lations from different sources, or experimentation with translations of novel concepts,
are variations in morphology and syntax. While everyone’s grammar contains
variation, some variants by their nature are unlikely to belong to the same grammar.
The emphatic adverb sunsaiw ‘immediately’ occurs 20x, 17 of which are in Mark
(§3.32). Luke prefers plain suns ‘immediately’ (12x), which also occurs in Mark (23x),
but only in chs. 1–5. Sunsaiw occurs 16x in chs. 5 to the end. In ch. 5, suns occurs at
verses 2, 13, and 42, sunsaiw at 29 and 30. There is next to no overlap.
Swes ‘one’s own’ (of all persons, singular and plural) occurs mainly in the Epistles
(17x, 9 dupl), rarely in the Gospels (Mk 1x, Lk 1x) except John (4x), and Skeireins (4x).
In the dative-accusative plural of ‘us’, unsis predominates in the Gospels, uns in the
Epistles, especially 2 Corinthians (Snædal 2010). In the Bologna fragment, only unsis
occurs (7x + 1 conjectured §3.14).
Eighteen of the 48 duals occur in Mark 10–14, not without variation (Seppänen
1985), and only one occurs in the Epistles (§5.31).
18 The Goths and Gothic
The neuter nominative-accusative singular of the strong adjective has no suffix (e.g.
þein ‘your’, all ‘all’) or -ata (þeinata, allata). What is most striking about the use of -ata
is its low occurrence in the Epistles (Ratkus 2015; see §3.5).
Fadrein ‘parents’ has special plural forms only in the Epistles (see App.).
In the realm of syntax, separation of du ‘to’ from an infinitive is restricted to the
Epistles and one occurrence in Skeireins (§9.24), e.g. du akran bairan (Rom 7:5A) ‘to
bear fruit’ (Gk. eis tò karpophorẽsai ‘for fruit-bearing’), du in aljana briggan ins (Rom
11:11A) ‘in order to provoke (lit. bring) them to jealousy’, du galiugagudam gasaliþ
matjan (1Cor 8:10A) ‘to eat (what is) sacrificed to idols’, etc. (Grewolds 1932: 19).
The subject focus construction iþ is qaþ-uh (Mk 14:62, Lk 18:21, 29, 20:25, Jn 9:17,
38) ‘and he said’ (§11.14) is attested only in the Gospels, less Matthew. The verb in
Mark is restricted to qaþ-uh ‘and he said’. The simpler iþ is qaþ (16x) ‘and he said’
occurs in the same three Gospels, but iþ Iesus qaþ (10x) ‘and Jesus said’ is found in
Matthew (8:22, 27:11).
It is fair to say that, with the exception of Smirnickaja (2014), the scholarly opinion
has shifted from the unitarian view of Wulfila as the sole translator to a team of trans-
lators. While one individual can be responsible for numerous variations, some highly
idiosyncratic and experimental coinages, like the hapax ufargudja for ‘high priest’
(§7.6), are unlikely to have been the work of one and the same translator.
To conclude this section, scholars have noted the diversity of forms and word
choices but ignored the most probative evidence: localization of different syntactic
structures, such as separation of du ‘to’ from an infinitive in the Epistles, the sub-
ject focus construction limited to three of the four Gospels, variation in the use of
reflexives and pronominals (§§9.5f.), or the near confinement to Mark of þata ‘that,
this’ with the infinitive as a quasi-gerundial (§9.25). The accusative and infinitive
construction normally contains wisan ‘to be’ and is triggered by verbs with an
accusative feature. Barring several examples whose grammaticality has been ques-
tioned, the most flagrant exceptions are in the linguistically adventuresome Luke
(§§9.29ff.).
More generally, despite the optimism expressed by Peeters (1985b), the Gothic cor-
pus exhibits a range of constructions from fully idiomatic and carefully nuanced to
marginally acceptable, to ungrammatical constructions (cf. Kirchner 1879) that are
not likely to belong to one individual’s grammar, and point to a team of translators (cf.
Ratkus 2016). Unequivocal evidence for any position on the Gothic translator(s) is of
course lacking.
It is generally agreed that Wulfila used an early Byzantine text.18 The Latin Vulgate
of Jerome [347–420] relied mainly on Alexandrian manuscripts (e.g. Nestle et al. 2012).
To illustrate this issue, one difference involves the ending of the Lord’s Prayer:
(3) unte þeina ist þiudangardi jah mahts jah wulþus in
for thine is kingdom and power and glory in
aiwins (Mt 6:13)19
eons
About a dozen manuscripts containing Matthew have this doxology (Falluomini 2015:
149), or praise formula (Gk. dóxa ‘glory’). The early Didache [c1e/2b], which bears
similarities to Matthew, also has a variant: hóti soũ estin hē dúnamis kaì hē dóxa eis
toùs aiõnas (Didache 8.2) ‘because yours is the power and the glory into the eons’. The
main Byzantine text has the complete doxology (Robinson & Pierpont 2005: 11), as
does cod. Brixianus and several other pre-Vulgate manuscripts (cf. VL 1972: 31). Both
the Didache and the doxology are ignored by Jerome’s Vulgate.
The Gothic Gospels are sequenced Matthew–John–Luke–Mark in the misleadingly
named ‘Western’ order (cf. Burton 1996b: 82). This is the order followed by the Greek-
Latin Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (VL 5) [ca. 400] (Parker 1992), with only Luke
complete, and some ten other sources, including Peshitta Syriac manuscripts (Metzger
& Ehrman 2005: 276f.).20 The Western order is characteristic of several Vetus Latina
manuscripts, such as codd. Palatinus (VL 2), Vercellensis (VL 3), Veronensis (VL 4),
Corbeiensis II (VL 8), Brixianus (VL 10), Monacensis / Valerianus (VL 13) (Houghton
2016b: 211–19; cf. Burton 2000). Of these, VL 3, 4, and 10 are, like Argenteus, deluxe
manuscripts (Friesen & Grape 1927: 107ff.; cf. Acker 1994: 45f.).
Burkitt (1899) argued that the Gothic translation influenced north Italian manu-
scripts of the Vetus Latina, or (misnamed) ‘Old Latin’ (Bible), a pre-Vulgate Latin trans-
lation of a scantily preserved Greek text (see http://www.vetus-latina.de/en/index
.html). One of those is cod. Brixianus [c61] which, like Argenteus, is a purple parch-
ment with silver ink (gold for the first three lines of each Gospel) and Eusebian canon
18 See, for instance, Hug (1821: 462–89), Kauffmann (1911a), Friedrichsen (1961a), Campanile (1975),
Metzger (1977: 384f.), Ratkus (2011), Falluomini (2013a, 2015).
The Byzantine text developed slowly (Kenyon 1937: 199). It was only partially standardized by the time
of Wulfila, and would not have been the same as modern versions (e.g. Robinson & Pierpont 2005). These
issues, their evolution, and the Greek Vorlage are discussed most extensively by Falluomini (2013a, b,
2015). For edns of the main Greek and Latin Biblical MSS, see Falluomini (2014: 286f.).
19 Goth. in aiwins is unique. More formulaic is du aiwa ‘for ever’ (Jn 8:35 2x, 12:34, 14:16, 15:16, 2Cor
9:9B, Bl 1r.6f.). The difference seems to be translation prompted. In all of these passages, the Byzantine
main text has eis tòn aiõna ‘into the eon (sg)’, and most of the Latin texts have in aeternum ‘into eternity’
(cf. Francini 2009: 96f.; Falluomini 2014: 292). Another rendering of eis toùs aiõnas (Lk 1:33) and eis tòn
aiõna (Jn 6:51, 58) is in ajukdūþ (Schaubach 1879: 14; Stolzenburg 1905: 10; Odefey 1908: 56; see §8.13).
The Crimean graffiti have und aiwins [unto the eons] (Korobov & Vinogradov 2016: 146).
20 There is evidence for a variety of sequences in the early manuscripts, e.g. Mark before Matthew in
VL 1 (Codex Bobiensis) (Houghton 2016b: 195). A complete register of the Vetus Latina MSS, including
edns, is found in Houghton (2016b: 210–54).
20 The Goths and Gothic
parallel tables in the bottom margin of each page rather than at the beginning of the
codex (see Nordenfalk 1938: 263; Acker 1994: 44, 78–85; Snædal & Lock 2018). Despite
the heavy overlay of Vulgate readings (Burton 2000: 27), some Brixian readings differ
from other pre-Vulgate versions and the Vulgate but match the Gothic text (Marold
1881a–83; Burkitt 1899, 1926; Metzger 1977: 386). See the extensive literature in Pakis
(2010).
In the Gospels (excluding Matthew) the historical present is prompted only ten
times by the same construction in Greek, while deviations from the Greek agree 138x
with the Vetus Latina (Pakis 2010). This may, of course, be an independent stylistic
feature of both Gothic and Biblical Latin.
Cod. Brixianus occasionally agrees alone with the Gothic. For instance, ustauh
(Mk 1:12) ‘led out’ is not a match to (other) Vetus Latina or Vulgate manuscripts with
expulit ‘drove out’, Vet. Lat. tulit ‘led’, dūxit ‘id.’, etc. (cf. VL 1970: 3), but only to Brixian
ēdūxit ‘led out’. Similarly, wopidedun (Mk 10:49) ‘they called’ differs from those Vet.
Lat. MSS with dīxērunt ‘they said’, clāmāvērunt ‘they exclaimed’, and Vulg. vocant ‘they
call’ (= Gk. phōnoũsin ‘id.’), but matches Brixian vocāvērunt ‘they called’. Odefey (1908:
96–106) provides for Luke a complete list of the Gothic correspondences shared solely
with cod. Brixianus.
Brixianus can also pattern with the Greek against the Vulgate and Gothic text (Stutz
1972: 389, w. lit), and Kauffmann (1900) concludes that both stem from a Gothic-Latin
bilingual text. Some other pre-Vulgate Latin manuscripts also show distinct similarities
to the Gothic (Piper 1876; Odefey 1908: 126ff.; Burton 1996a; Falluomini 2015: 101–4).
Especially in Luke and the Epistles the Gothic sometimes agrees with Latin and/or
Alexandrian texts, but non-Byzantine readings in different manuscript traditions
imply their presence in the Byzantine area and Wulfila’s Vorlage prior to stabilization
of the proferred Byzantine readings (Friedrichsen 1959; Gryson 1990; Falluomini
2013a, 2015). It goes without saying that, if there were different translators of the
Gothic Bible, they could have used different Greek manuscripts (Metlen 1932: 25).
Unlike the reason(s) for them, relationships between the Latin versions and the
Gothic Bible are often unmistakable (Burkitt 1926, Hunter 1969). Due to codicological
and text-critical similarities to cod. Brixianus (Gryson 1990; Falluomini 2013a, b, 2015:
33), it was once hypothesized that Argenteus had been influenced by Latin versions
and in turn to have influenced Brixianus (Friedrichsen 1926, 1961a: 68; Metzger 1977:
386). Nevertheless, the “Gothic and Latin may represent independent renderings of
the same Greek readings” (Falluomini 2013b: 146).
To conclude this section, “Wulfila probably used, beside a Greek Vorlage which
transmitted an early Byzantine text, a Latin translation, in order to better render dif-
ficult passages of the Greek. This would justify some similar renderings in the Gothic
and Latin versions” (Falluomini 2015: 147). The Latin version(s) would of course have
been pre-Vulgate.
CH APTER 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
( ) (h) ( )
a b g d e q[u] z h th
aza bercna geuua daaz eyz quertra ezec haal thyth
Ï
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
– ( )
i k l m n j u p –
iiz chozma laaz manna noicz gaar uraz pertra –
Letters with allegedly Gothic names similar to those in Old English and Old Norse
appear in cod. Vindobonensis 795 (Falluomini 2010a: 27). There are few changes in their
interpretations from Zacher (1855) and Grienberger (1896) to Ganina (2007) and
Seebold (2010). Unless otherwise mentioned, the reconstruction of the letter names
follows Seebold: *ansuz ‘deity’, ?*berk(a)na- ‘birch tree’, *gebō ‘gift’, *dagaz ‘day’, *ehwaz
‘horse’, *kwerþra- ‘lamp wick’ (Patrick Stiles, p.c.; cf. OS querthar* ‘wick’, OHG querdar
‘id.’ EPDG 318), VL idzēta < zẽta (Wagner 1994: 275), *hagla- ‘hail’, ?*þun-ra- ‘thun-
der’? (thyth can be theta /þita/), *īsaz ‘ice’, ?*kiz-na- ‘pine’? (?*k(a)uz-ma- ‘ulcer’?),
*laguz ‘lake’, *man-n- ‘human’, *naudiz ‘need’, *jæra- ‘year’, *uruz ‘aurochs’, ?*perþa-
‘poetry’?, *raidō ‘cart, Reite’, *sō(w)el- ‘sun’, *tīwaz ‘god’, *wennjō/*wunnjō ‘bliss’, *fehu
‘c(h)attel’, *ingwaz ‘(i)ng’1, ?*hwera- ‘kettle’? (cf. EDPG 265), *ōþala- ‘inheritance’.
The letter names and some forms, e.g. for /f/, /þ/, /j/, suggest runic input (cf. older
futhark f, þ). The form of /j/ in cod. Vindobonensis 795 resembles runic con-
sisting of right-leaning < plus retrograde > (cf. Venetic ᛁᛁ, >>, >ᛁ = ii, like uu for [w]),
and a runic source is likely (Luft 1898c: 93).2 The sign for /u/ resembles runic , and the
runes for /þ/ , /r/ , and /s/ could have influenced the Gothic letters (Wimmer 1887).
/kw/ has the position and number ‘6’ of Greek wau/digamma /w/. Greek
qoppa, the source of Latin Q, no longer existed and only prehistorically had the sound
relevant to Gothic (ASPK 51ff.). Qoppa remained as ‘90’ in model abecedaria. Gothic
has its position and numerical value. It does not seem accidental that /kw/
strongly resembles and occupies the slot of lip-rounded digamma /w/.
The origin of the Gothic alphabet is disputed. Viehmeyer (1971) derives it from runic.
Most of the Gothic letters have a Greek shape, alphabet order, numerical value, sound
(Granberg 2010, 2013), and both have twenty-seven signs. Runic input is plausible
(Mees 2002; Raschellà 2011; pace Marchand 1955b, 1959, 1973a; Ebbinghaus 1996).3
Snædal (2015b) derives the Gothic alphabet from the Greek, with j and q influenced
by the Latin alphabet. Latin of course never had a distinctive j, which occurred only
as an occasional swash or tall i, which usually marked length or was stylistic (Gordon
1983: 14). It had the sound /j/ only in rare epigraphic and manuscript spellings like
‘his’ (cf. Lindsay 1894: 439).
1 The ing-rune ᛜ [ŋ] is either a composite of a right-leaning < plus retrograde > form of gamma Γ (com-
pare the Greek and Gothic convention of gg for [ŋ(g)]) (Miller 1994: 68), or an adaptation of the Phoenician
pharyngeal / / (‘ayin), perceived as the velar nasal [ŋ] (Vennemann 2010). These two accounts are not
necessarily incompatible. The source of the two gammas in Greek for [ŋ(g)] (which is unknown) could
have been the same sort of adaptation of Phoenician / /.
2 That the letter for /j/ was special is indicated by the symmetrical patterning with that for /kw/. Both
occur after five Greek-based letters. As to runic origin, in both Gothic and runic (e.g. the Vadstena bracte-
ate (ORI 90), the /j/ sign occurs in the second row, where it is the fourth letter from the right.
3 The source problem of the signs is compounded by the absence of agreement on the origin of older
futhark. Morris (1988) derives the runic script from a preclassical, epichoric Greek alphabet. Griffiths
(1999) and Faarlund (2004b) follow suit. The widespread idea that the Roman alphabet is the source is
epigraphically difficult (pace Robertson 2011, Losquiño 2015) and, unlike Latin letters, runes had names
(Barnes 2012: 21f., 157–63) and very different functions (ASPK ch. 5; Rousseau 2012: 39). Some signs favor
a north Italic origin; cf. Venetic /g/ (Eichner 2006). Markey (2001) reviews several Alpine alphabets.
Camunic has a few letter-forms in common with the older futhark, but most are quite different. Mees
(e.g. 2000, 2013) and several others argue for a North Etruscan origin. Miller (1994), Woodhouse (2002),
and Vennemann (2006, 2009, 2010, 2013) argue for a Phoenician origin of the runic alphabet, but Miller
advocates input from several scripts and Vennemann a more direct Phoenician lineage.
2.2 Specific letters 23
The shape and origin of nearly every Gothic letter is in dispute. This section examines
some of the details.
þ
The letter þ has been derived from a fourth-century cursive form of Greek /
theta (e.g. Marchand 1955b, 1973a: 19f.). Mees (2002: 65) denies this because of a simi-
lar runic form at Illerup (cf. Raschellà 2011: 117f.). Wimmer (1887: 268), Wagner
(2006b: 286), and Snædal (2015b: 99–103) derive þ from Gk. phi (early /ph/, c1–2
/f/). Snædal takes /hw/ from / theta, although theta was a precise match to the
sound of thorn (GGS 25). By that account, the decision to use a Latin or runic for /f/
left the perceptually close open for / /, which in turn left / available for /hw/. It is
just as plausible that cursive theta or runic thorn served for / / and something else
for /hw/.
/hw/
The origin of /hw/ is uncertain. Wagner (1986, 2006b: 289) suggests a wheel,
PGmc. *hwehwlaz. For Zacher (1855: 115f.), a pre-Wulfilian runic script had a letter
with this name; uuaer represents Goth. * air ‘caldron, kettle’ (ibid. 14, 16), a later
name for Wagner. Absence of * air and Gmc. ‘wheel’ from the Gothic corpus can be
accidental gaps. Observationally, appears pictographically iconic to a lip-rounded
mouth. Boüüaert (����: ���f.) posited O for rounding plus • for aspiration (cf.
Marchand 1973a: 22) (Wayne Harbert, p.c.), similar to other early modified letters
(ASPK 67).
and /s/
Latinate occurs with other vertical calligraphic letters in most Gothic manuscripts:
Argenteus, Ambrosiani A, C, E (and Vaticanus), Carolinus, and Gissensis. Rightward-
slanting sigmatic occurs with other slanting letters in Gotica Veronensia, Bononiensis,
Ambr. B, with some cursive traits in the margin glosses, the Ostrogothic deeds,
and the glosses of Ambr. A, mixed straight and slanting in the tabella Hungarica, an
upright variant in Ambr. D, and mostly vertical in the Crimean graffiti (Vinogradov &
Korobov 2015). It is the shape, then, not the slant, that is distinctive. Both styles are
rooted in Greek models, the upright in the Greek biblical majuscule, the sloping in
the ogival (pointed) majuscule (Falluomini 2015: 20f.). Upright letters prevail in the
second alphabet in cod. Vindobonensis. In the first, most letters have shape peculiar-
ities (Ebbinghaus & Wentzler 1977; Falluomini 2006, 2010, 2015: 20f.; Snædal 2015b:
95f.).
Sigmatic /s/ belongs to script Type I with n- suspension according to the Greek use.
Script Type II, with latinate /s/ (likely introduced in Italy), observes the Latin practice
of suspension marks for line-final /n/ and /m/ (cf. Marchand 1973a: 15f.). The marks
are for /n/ and for /m/, e.g. (Sk 2.1.17) = acc sg m briggandan
24 Alphabet and phonology
90 and 900
The numbers 90 and 900 have no (known) sound value. The latter resembles runic
and archaic Greek /t/ but corresponds in numerical value to the Greek letter sampi
. It occurs only in the Salzburg-Vienna Alcuin MS (cod. Vindobonensis 795 4.11 2x).
The Gothic Bible spells out niun hunda (Neh 7:39) ‘900’, but was likely part of the
original Gothic alphabet (pace Wimmer 1887: 263) as one of the twenty-seven signs
matching the Greek.
and Ï
and Ï were positional variants: ï was word boundary- and syllable-initial, e.g. ïzei
‘(he) who’, usïddja ‘I went out’, saiïþ ‘sows’, sauïl ‘sun’, fraïtiþ ‘consumes’ (GG 22, cf.
GGS 25). Both are transcribed i. For Ï in foreign names, cf. Gaïus (Rom 16:23A), acc
Gaïu (1Cor 1:14A). Note also ïesus ‘Jesus’ (Col 4:11A/B) as an ordinary name. The div-
ine name is abbreviated , (GG 22; Falluomini 2015: 64).4 Sometimes Ï is an
archaic spelling for j, e.g. ïudáiwisko ‘like a Jew’, ïudáiwiskon ‘to live as a Jew’ (both
in Gal 2:14B) beside judáiwisks* (Tit 1:14A, Sk 3.2.9) ‘Jewish’ (Snædal 2015b: 101).5
is Greek (chi), which was a fricative by the second century (but see E. H. Sturtevant
1940: 85; Leppänen 1916: 104). It occurs mainly in religious words, e.g. (Ambr.
B ) for Xristus ‘Christ’ (Ebbinghaus 1997 [1995]: 92; GG 22; Falluomini 2015: 64);
pasxa ‘Passover; paschal feast’ (Jn 6:4, 18:28, 18:39) beside paska (Mk 14:12 [2x], 14:14,
etc. [6x total]) for Gk. ‘id.’; gen sg Zaxariïns (Lk 3:2) beside Zakariïns (Lk 1:21,
1:40), nom Zakarias (Lk 1:5, 1:12, 1:18, 1:67), voc Zakaria (Lk 1:13), acc Zakarian (Lk
1:59) ‘Zachariah’; aiwxaristian (2Cor 9:11B) ‘eucharist’ (Gaebeler 1911: 19f., 48ff.). k
is normal for Greek ; cf. Twkeikus (Eph 6:21B, Col 4:7A), Twkekus (Col 4:7B), acc
Twkeiku (2Tim 4:12A), for ; Akaïjai for Akhaíāi (2Cor 1:1B), Akaje
(2Cor 11:10B), Akaïje (1Cor 16:15B), etc. (cf. GGS 29, Marchand 1973a: 26, GG 67).
never occurs in native Gothic words like mag ‘is able’, if indeed [max] (§2.3).
Since k usually rendered Greek , the rare may be graphic (GGS 33), but original
4 The Greek models contained shortened forms devised by Christian scribes for prominent sacred
words, some written with the first and last letters, some with the first two and the last, and some with the
first letter and the last two. A horizontal line was written above the abbreviation, e.g. C for theós
‘God’ (Metzger & Ehrman 2005: 23f., w. lit). For equivalents in the Latin texts, see Houghton (2016b: 191).
5 From the 2nd century ce on (earlier in Egyptian papyri), Greek used the trẽma ‘perforation; dot on
dice’, a diaeresis, most often to mark a word-initial vowel after a word-final vowel, especially i or u, e.g.
/hiereús/ ‘priest’, but also to indicate that the vowel headed another syllable, as in ‘to Hades’.
Gothic scribes adapted one variety of this practice, which was inconsistent within Greek texts (Threatte
1980: 94f.). Greek had occasional doubling, as in beside /huiós/ ‘son’, but some diaeresis spellings
were lifted over directly, e.g. Goth. Gaïus from Gk. ‘Gaius’, in which ï in both languages indicates that
it belongs to another syllable, i.e. /Ga.jus/, the name being Lat. Gaius /gai.jus/.
2.2 Specific letters 25
(§2.7; pace Beck 1973a: 29), possibly to represent the aspirate as in Aramaic pasq’a
(Ebbinghaus 1963), not a substitute for missing Gothic [x] (Luft 1898a: 297). occurs
2x for Greek (Roberge 1984: 328), one in confusion: Xreskus (2Tim 4:10A) / Krispus
(MS B) for Gk. (Lat. Crēscēns); the former may be analogical to Xristus or the
latter to (acc) Krispu (1Cor 1:14A) = Gk. Kríspos / Lat. Crispus (Leppänen 2016: 103f.).
/ō/
Although Gothic o looks like Greek omega and is generally derived from it
(Marchand 1973a: 21f.), some (e.g. Wimmer 1887: 269f.; Snædal 2015b) derive it from
omicron, parallel to the derivation of e from epsilon. On this account, it is acci-
dental that (i) it resembles both omega and older futhark /o/; (ii) occupies the
numerical place of omega, (iii) is long /ō/ like omega, (iv) the Gothic alphabet closes
with /f/, /x/, /hw/6, /ō/, in the same positions and bearing the same numerical
values as Greek ph(e)ĩ, kh(e)ĩ, ps(e)ĩ, õ (méga), (v) Bishop Wulfila arranged his
pronounceable letters (i.e. less ) from to , mirroring “alpha to omega,” (vi) Gothic
/ē/ was derived from epsilon because both were high mid vowels (§2.6).
/h/
/h/ was from Latin because of its uncial form (Weingärtner 1858: 55; Luft 1898c: 92;
Falluomini 2015: 19). in the tabella Hungarica, Falluomini notes, implies that it was
in Wulfila’s alphabet and not due to western influence. The same sign in the Crimean
graffiti (Vinogradov & Korobov 2015: 65) reinforces this point. It occupies the position
of Greek H eta (§2.6), causing one to wonder about “the interplay between shape-
to-sound mapping and the shape-to-numerical-value mapping” (Wayne Harbert, p.c.).
Conclusion
There is no evidence that Wulfila did not know runes (Snædal 2017). Despite count-
less denials, it is not implausible that he adapted an older runic script to a Greek
sequence of symbols, together with their numerical values, making additional use
of Latin models (Cercignani 1988; cf. Gütenbrunner 1950). The details differ, but
Wimmer (1887: 259–74), Mensel (1904), Hermann (1930), d’Alquen (1974: 34–48),
Rousseau (2012: 39–43), and Falluomini (2015: 18–21) derive the Gothic alphabet from
Greek with input from Latin and runic. Such accounts potentially explain both the
6 /hw/ replaces the superfluous ps(e)ĩ, which had no runic counterpart (cf. d’Alquen 1974: 44f.). For
some (e.g. Wimmer 1887: 261; Kortlandt 2017), is a direct continuation of .
26 Alphabet and phonology
runic-looking letters (Wessén 1972) and the latinate letters. Unequivocal evidence for
any of these positions is lacking, but most invented scripts have letters from different
sources (ASPK 67, w. lit).
stop vcl p t k kw
vcd b d [g] (gw)
continuant vcl f s [x] hw h / [ ?]
vcd [ ] [ð] z
sonorant nasal m n [ŋ]
liquid r l
glide j w
(Lk 2:5) ‘id.’ and fragift (Sk 3.3.21) ‘gift’. Collectively, these show that b was contextually
spirantized.
Voiced [z] (and [ ]) were less well integrated into the phonological system than were
[v] /b/ and [ð] /d/. In Proto-Germanic, there was no contrast between /s/ and /z/ word-
initially, and /g/ contrasts word-medially with /h/, not /x/ (Suzuki 2018, w. lit). For
examples, cf. asilus ‘donkey’ beside azets* ‘easy’, taíhun ‘ten’ vs. acc tiguns ‘tens’, etc.
Skeireins or Nehemiah, and the greatest number of final voiced stops for all lexical
categories occurs in Luke 1–10 (Jacobsohn 1920: 131; GGS 57, 74). Exceptionless impv
gif ‘give’ (7x, 1 dupl), 1sg pret gaf (2x), 3sg pret gaf (28x, 4 dupl) ‘gave’ (not counting
prefixed forms) have underlying /f/; -d predominates before voiced segments
(Streitberg 1905: 391–400) except in Luke 1–10 where sentence sandhi is ignored
(cf. Jacobsohn 1920: 131f., 149–52). Proto-Germanic had voiced dentals in the main
set of verb endings, and the Gothic variation is at least in part predicted by final
devoicing (Bernharðsson 2001: 270f.).
/kw/
Gothic q is always voiceless on the evidence of the z in dat sg riqiza ‘darkness’ by
Thurneysen’s Law (§2.5), and represents /kw/, possibly even in qrammiþa ‘moistness’.8
It is never written kw and never divided at the end of a line; cf. ri-qis ‘darkness’ (Schulze
1908). It transcribes Latin qu- in Qartus (Rom 16:23A) = Lat. Quartus, Gk. Koúartos
(GGS 37), but Akwla (1Cor 16:19B) mirrors Gk. Akúlā not Lat. Aquila (Snædal 2018:
199).
/hw/
represents /hw/ (and not a sequence [hw]) because it reduplicates as a single C
( aí op ‘boasted’), counts as one C for class 5 verbs, like saí -an ‘to see’, whose roots
end in a single C, is never written hw, which occurs between words, e.g. þairh-wakandans
Lk 2:8 ‘watching through’ (Weingärtner 1858: 56f.), is not divided at line-ends (cf. sai-
an ‘to see’ Schulze 1908), fails to vocalize between Cs, and is voiceless for Thurneysen’s
Law (§2.5), e.g. ar aznos ‘volley of arrows’ vs. hlaiwasnos ‘tombs’ (Streitberg 1903: 495–8;
Penzl 1950; Bennett 1959a, 1967b; GG 70; Thöny 2013: 123; Suzuki 2018). Wagner
(2006b: 287f.) denies this, citing reduplicated forms (cf. Voyles 1968: 721): pret 3sg
-skaískáid (skáidan ‘separate’), 1sg -staístald (-staldan ‘acquire’), etc. However, s + stop
crosslinguistically patterns differently from other clusters (Levin 1985; Moon 2010:
232ff.; Kostakis 2015: 93). Except for kriustiþ (Mk 9:18) ‘gnashes’, str 2 verbs have only
7 More generally, they do not assimilate at all. An isolated ummahteigam (1Cor 9:22A) ‘to the weak’ is
cited (e.g. GGS 55; Marchand 1973a: 54), but the reading unmahteigam is certain (Snædal 2013a: i. xix).
8 The reconstruction is something like *gwroms-mó- (EDPG 300f.). The labiovelar is often denied (e.g.
Douse 1886: 58; Webster 1889: 88; Sturtevant 1951: 59; Casaretto 2004: 470) on the assumption that the q-
spelling of qrammiþa is an error, but /kw/ is possible (Kotin 2012: 63; cf. EDPG 301). For another complex
q- cluster, cf. dat pl f hnasqjaim (Mt 11:8 2x, Lk 7:25) ‘(in) fine (clothes)’.
2.3 Phonological system 1: Consonants 29
one final C (Sturtevant 1933b: 209), but s in sC is extraprosodic (cf. Takahaši 1987;
Keydana 2006: 74ff.) only word-initially, as in many languages (Yates 2017: 137ff.). In
Gothic, -sC- makes a heavy syllable for Sievers’ Law (§2.12); cf. 3sg -qisteiþ (fra-qisteiþ
11x, us-qisteiþ Mk 12:9, Lk 20:16) ‘destroys’ (Suzuki 1982: 601), and invariably divides
-s.C- (§2.11), showing that internally s is not an onset adjunct.
/gw/ or [gw]?
It is generally assumed that represents /gw/ rather than a cluster [gw] (Beck 1976:
19ff.; cf. Thöny 2013: 123), but it is divided some ten times, e.g. sigg-wada (2Cor 3:15B)
‘is read’, trigg-wos (3x) ‘of covenant’ (Schulze 1908; Marchand 1973a: 56f.). occurs
98 times. Since the saggws* type is never spelled *sangws, there is no internal evidence
for the etymological contrast between, e.g. saggws* /saŋgws/ ‘song’ and triggws /triggws/
(or [triggws]?) ‘true’ (Brosman 1971; Snædal 2011b). External evidence for the dual
pronunciation is also inconclusive. Ostrogothic Triggu(il)a* / Triuu(il)a* (Wrede 1891:
78–80) can confirm only absence of a nasal (Wagner 2003) but may also lack /g/
(Snædal 2011b: 151). This nasalless name has no bearing on the saggws* type. Greek
gg for [ŋg] and [gg] provides a model for the dual Gothic pronunciation, but the
absence of <ngw> spellings is unexpected in light of occasional ng spellings (§2.3).
/j/
For the glide /j/,9 cf. dat Beþanijin (Lk 19:29, Jn 12:1) ~ Beþaniïn (Mk 8:22, 11:12),
si(j)um, si(j)uþ ‘we are, you are’ (§5.24), saijiþ (Mk 4:14, Gal 6:7A, 6:8A 2x, 2Cor
9:6A 2x) ~ saiïþ (ms. B) ‘sows’. Frijon ‘to love’ prefers j. In friaþwa ‘love’, j is nearly
confined to MS A. Fijan ‘to hate’ and fijands ‘enemy’ (*fi(j)and- EDPG 140) prefer j,
but note 3sg fiaiþ (Jn 12:25) ~ fijaiþ (6x) ~ fijaid (Jn 15:19) ‘hates’, PrP nom pl m
fiandans (Rom 12:9A) ~ fijandans (Rom 11:28A) ‘hating’; acc sg fiand (Mt 5:43) ~
fijand (4x) ‘enemy’. The nom sg is always fijands (Rom 8:7A, 1Cor 15:26A, Gal 4:16A,
Bl 2r.21, 21f.).
Geminates
Postvocalic geminates are distinctive for resonants (Eichman 1971), some fricatives,
and voiceless stops (Meyer 1855); cf. manna ‘man’, atta ‘father’, skatts ‘mina, money’,
smakka* ‘fig’ (NWG 223). Contrast in ‘in(to)’ with inn ‘in(side)’; acc sg fulan ‘foal,
colt’ : acc pl m fullans ‘full’; fuls ‘foul (smelling)’ : fulls ‘full’; wis (3x) ‘calm’ : -qiss
‘speech’ (missa-qiss ‘discord’ etc. §7.6). See also aiþþau ‘or’ (§2.7) and -ddj- (§2.14).
Foreign words have many geminates, e.g. Filippus ‘Philip’, sakkus* ‘sackcloth’, acc
Þaddaiu (Mk 3:18) ‘Thaddaeus’, sabbato ‘sabbath’, aiffaþa (Mk 7:34) ‘open up’ (Beade
1971: 9f.).
9 Vennemann (1985: 206–17) claims j was a fricative. The glide status is upheld by, e.g. Van Helten (1903:
63f.), Gaebeler (1911: 40f.), Jacobsohn (1915), GGS 38, 76, Jones (1963), Beade (1971: 44f.), Beck (1976),
Barrack (1997: 5), GG 57, Heidermanns (2007a), Pierce (2007: 241), Kotin (2012: 62).
30 Alphabet and phonology
Cluster simplification
Most languages avoid overlong sequences, such as a long vowel followed by a con-
sonantal geminate; cf. *-wīs-s > un-weis (1Cor 14:24A) ‘unlearned’, *laus-s > laus ‘free’,
*qiss(i)z > *-qiss-s > -qiss (GGS 78f.; Schuhmann 2018b). These examples may be doubly
motivated since, independently of overlength, s is deleted after stem-final s: drus (dat
drus-a) ‘fall’ (Buckalew 1964: 59f.; Schmierer 1977: 75). Geminates can simplify before
another consonant, e.g. mans to manna ‘man’ (§3.4), kant (4x) ~ kannt (2x) ‘you know’,
usfullnoda (5x) ‘fulfilled’ but 3pl usful(l)nodedun 3x each (Beade 1971: 16f.).
Dentals in contact
Lexical geminates differ from the same strings at a boundary. Contrast atta ‘father’
(q.v. in App.) with wissa ‘knew’ {wit+þa}; cf. kun-þa ‘knew’, mah-ta ‘was able’. The 2sg
wáist ‘you know’ {wait+t} vs. 3sg wáit ‘knows’, or ga-stost (Rom 11:20A) ‘you stand’ to
ga-standan ‘come to a stand’, may be analogical to þarf-t (Jn 16:30) ‘you need’, qam-t
‘you came’, etc. (GGS 167; GG 73ff.; Bammesberger 1990b; pace Sihler 1986a).
The geminate [tt] differs from similar strings at a boundary where s was inserted.
Proto-Indo-European featured delayed release [s] between two dentals. As a parallel,
some speakers of Bernese Swiss German, when speaking High German, pronounce
Rottanne ‘Norway spruce; Christmas tree’ as [rotstann ] in variation with [rot(h)#tann ]
(Miller 1973: 712). In Latin and Germanic the reflex of the IE cluster was -ss- (e.g. Lat.
scissus ‘split’ < *skitsto- < *skid-tó- EDL 544), in Greek -st-, as in oĩstha ‘you know’
< *(w)óitstha < *wóid-th2e (MPIE 4.2.6), the cognate of Goth. wáist. Another Gothic
example is -qiss (e.g. ana-qiss ‘slander’) < *kwissi- < *gwetsti- (§8.9; cf. qiþan ‘say’).
Germanic also has examples of -st- from *-tst- that are difficult to motivate by
analogy, e.g. gud-blostreis ‘God-worshipper’ (to blotan ‘revere, worship’ §7.4), gilstr*
‘tax’ (acc pl gilstra Rom 13:6A and gilstra-meleins [tax-registry] Lk 2:2 ‘census’ §7.4),
derived from -gildan ‘pay’. See the detailed discussion in Hill (2003: 93–217). These
may involve a new rule: [coronal] + [coronal] > -st- (cf. LHE2 247f.). Such a rule would
have come about by phonologization of the analogical changes in wáist ‘you know’
etc. (for this type of change, cf. LCLT i. 218f., w. lit).
As to atta, the integrity of geminates is well established (e.g. Kenstowicz & Pyle 1973;
Kenstowicz 1994: 410–20; Suh 1997), and it is not necessary to appeal to hypocoristic
status to explain why the form is not *assa (LHE2 118).
Since voicing and pitch depend on vocal fold tension, [+stiff vocal folds] yields
[–vcd] obstruents and high(er) pitch in sonorants. Stressed vowels typically bear high
tone and unstressed low. Therefore a stressed vowel is assigned [+stiff vocal folds] and
an unstressed one [–stiff vocal folds]. VL, then, is the spread of [–stiff vocal folds]
from the vowel to the nearest following continuant (Calabrese & Halle 1998; Page 1998).
Gothic lacks VL in strong verbs, e.g. *keusan, *kaus, *kuzun, *kuzans ‘to trial, select’
> Goth. -kiusan, -káus*, -kusun, -kusans ‘test, prove’ (vs. OE cēosan, cēas, curon, coren
‘choose’). This prompted speculation that VL diffused over Germanic (e.g. Garrett
2010), that the Gothic accent was different, that VL was not fully developed in Gothic,
etc. Most likely, the accent shift rendered VL tenuous, and Gothic lost it.10
There is no alternation in wisan ‘to be’, wesum ‘we were’ vs. OE wesan : wæron, but
note the underlying /s/ in was ‘was’, was-uh (freq) ‘and was’. Also lacking alternation
is Goth. saian : saíso (for *sezō-) ‘sow : sowed’ vs. ON sá : sera ‘id.’. In deverbative verbs
a labial or dental fricative is usually voiced, e.g. sandjan ‘to send’, frawardjan* ‘disfig-
ure, destroy’, a sibilant or velar voiceless (Wood 1895: 18f., 24; Bernharðsson 2001:
242–7); cf. háusjan ‘hear’, láisjan ‘teach’, wasjan* ‘dress’, partly by analogy and partly
by repeating a denominal base (láusjan ‘release’ to láus ‘free’). Still, /z/ remained in
hazjan ‘praise’, talzjan* ‘teach’, etc. Bernharðsson (2001: 281–8) argues for dissimila-
tion of a VL-voiced sibilant or velar before a voiced fricative, e.g. *hauzijiði > hauseið
(> hauseiþ ‘hears’) but *hazjiþi > hazjiþ* [only 2pl] ‘praises’. Suzuki (2018) counter-
proposes the marginality of velars and a perception of /z/ as derived and less well
integrated into the system. He speculates that imposition of [+spread glottis] on the
fricatives favored voiceless values.
VL alternations are isolated and occur in verb forms that are marginal to the main
ablaut system, especially the preterite presents, e.g. áih : áigum (~ áihum) ‘possess’
(1/3sg : 1pl); þarf : þaúrbum ‘need’. Beyond that, there is residual -saízlep [2x] beside
saíslep [3x] ‘slept’.11 Finally, note the isolated alternation (ga-)filhan ‘conceal; bury’ : adj
10 So, for instance, Wood (1895), Normier (1977), Schaffner (2001), Bernharðsson (2001), Iverson &
Salmons (2003), Liberman (2010), Kiparsky (2010), Mottausch (2011), Suzuki (1994, 2018).
Prior to the accent shift, Kluge’s Law (Kluge 1884) phonologized VL before the plain voiced obstruents
shifted (Patrick Stiles, p.c.). By Kluge’s Law (KL), a voiced obstruent (including those produced by VL) +
[n] became geminated, then devoiced, e.g. *ḱweit-nó- > *hwīþ-ná- (GL + other early changes) > *hwīð-ná-
(VL) > *hwīddá- (KL) > *hwītta- (devoicing) > *hwīta- (C-simplification §2.3) > Goth. eits* ‘white’ (q.v. in
App.). Ringe (2017: 136–40) rejects KL but does not consider the evidence in Kroonen (2011, 2013).
The accent shift was traditionally held to have followed GL, but may have occurred in stages, e.g. via
heavy syllables (d’Alquen 1988). Bernharðsson (2001: 36–9) rejects all accounts which finagle with the
accent. Esau (1973) blames GL on Raetic. Koivulehto & Vennemann (1996) correlate GL and VL with
contacts with Finnish and Finnish gradation. This requires VL to have preceded GL, i.e. */t/ became */d/
(etc.) then shifted dialectally to the proper outputs. Schrijver (2014: 179) speculates that the accent shift
was due to Balto-Finnic contact, which hardly accounts for Celtic or Italic (Kuryłowicz 1968: 191ff.).
11 Attested are saíslep (Mt 8:24), anasaísleip (Lk 8:23), anasaíslepun (1Thess 4:14B), gasaízlep (Jn 11:11),
gasaízlepun (1Cor 15:6A). If the reduplicating syllable could be stressed in PGmc. with secondary stress on
the root (a reflex of original main stress), and ga- bore no lexical stress (Bennett 1972: 109f.; but see
Bammesberger 1981a), the difference between [ga-s 1-zlē2p-] and [a2na-s 1-slē3/0p-] (numbers = stress
levels) might explain the saizlep forms. Saislep is then due to the elimination of VL in reduplicating verbs
(GGS 68; Sturtevant 1957b). ON sera ‘I sowed’ (< *sezō LHE2 277) would reflect [se1-zō2].
32 Alphabet and phonology
fulgins* (nom sg n fulgin Mt 10:26, Lk 8:17, gen sg n fulginis Mk 4:22) ‘hidden, con-
cealed’ beside the regularized PPP ga-fulhans (Lk 16:22) ‘buried’ (cf. KM 105).
Unique to Gothic is Thurneysen’s Law (Thurneysen 1898), by which the first and second
continuants “received a converse specification in terms of voice” (Suzuki 1992: 41),
e.g. waldufni ‘power’ (< *walðufni) but fastubni* ‘fasting’ (< *fastuβni) (§8.17).
Suzuki (2018) reformulates TL: a fricative is realized as [+spread glottis] (aspirated)
in the next syllable after an onset that is unaspirated. In a string [unaspirated/voiced] . . .
[unaspirated/voiced] the latter is changed to [aspirated/unvoiced].12
On most accounts, TL is bidirectional. Bernharðsson (2001: 48–110) finds a limited
role of TL in devoicing, never of a VL-voiced segment. For Suzuki (2018), only the
voiced . . . voiceless type is regular, e.g. agis- ‘fear’, not the voiceless . . . voiced hatiz-
‘hatred’ type (§8.20). Suzuki’s rule prevents voiceless . . . voiceless forms, but note
diupiþa ‘profundity; the deep’, beside áuþida ‘desert’, waírþida ‘worthiness’. These are
the only words in which -iþa occurs exclusively as -ida (§§8.7ff.). In general, TL affected
only certain derivational suffixes, and was mostly leveled (Woodhouse 2000a).
By bidirectional TL, or by implied opposition to the rule that regulates voiced . . .
voiceless (Suzuki), Gothic also permitted voiceless . . . voiced, e.g. witubni* ‘knowl-
edge’, aqizi ‘ax’, wratodus* ‘journey’, hatiz- ‘hatred’ (beside agis- ‘fear’), ar aznos ‘vol-
ley of arrows’ (vs. hlaiwasnos ‘tombs’), dat fahedai ‘joy’ (vs. magaþai ‘maiden’),
wulþag- ‘splendid’ (vs. stainah- ‘stony’ §8.31). It appears that [j] had no effect in auhjo-
dus* (§8.11) ‘noise’ but [r] did: hlutriþa* (§§8.7f.) ‘purity’ (Thurneysen 1898: 209).
Suzuki (2018) ranks the preferences from most to least optimal: voiced . . .
voiceless > voiceless . . . voiced > voiced . . . voiced (e.g. barizeins* ‘(made) of barley’,
audag- ‘blessed’ (but Suzuki excludes g), twalibe ‘of twelve’) > voiceless . . . voiceless
(diupiþa).
12 This is not the place for a critique of the phonetics. However, (i) “all voiceless fricatives (aspirated or
unaspirated) are produced with a wide glottal opening to insure a sufficient amount of airflow to generate
friction” (Ratree Wayland, p.c.), (ii) it is “the timing of laryngeal and supralaryngeal articulations that
control aspiration” (Ridouane 2006), (iii) aspirated fricatives are rare and not likely distinctive in
Germanic, (iv) nondistinctive phonetic details do not rearrange phonological systems, and (v) Suzuki’s
proposed dissimilation of non-aspirates may be unparalleled.
2.6 Phonological system 2: Vowels 33
(cf. Mossé 1956: 58; Vennemann 1971; 1978: 340f.). The indeterminacies are laid out by
Heffner (1935).
short long
front back front back
high i (y) u ī u
A sound [y]?
Whether or not Gothic had the sound [y] is contingent on the pronunciation of w
in several contexts. One involves borrowings like Lwstrws (§2.2) ‘in Lustra’.
The pronunciation /lýstrys/ is disputed (Weingärtner 1858: 44f.; Elis 1903: 20; Collitz
1925; Bennett 1959a; Jones 1960).13 If Gothic had no /y/, monolingual Goths likely
said /lístris/ (or the like). Belief in [lýstrys] is based on the alleged /y/ of /w rsty/
(e.g. Kortlandt 2017), but waúrstw ‘work, deed’ was most likely pronounced [w rstw]
(§2.13).
Quantity contrasts
The letters e, o are long /ē/, /ō/ (see §2.9), which by convention need not be
indicated. The vowel /ī/ is written ei. In foreign names, ei can represent short /ĭ/
especially before vowels and in unstressed syllables, e.g. Heleias (Lk 9:54) ~ Helias
(11x), acc Heleian (Lk 9:19) ~ Helian (3x), etc. (Gk. Hēlíās), gen Aileiaizairis (Lk 3:29)
(Gk. Eliézer), Auneiseifauraus (2Tim 1:16A/B) (Gk. gen Onīsiphórou), etc. (Van Helten
1903: 60ff; Snædal 2018: 191–6). Leppänen (2016: 106) counts 131 examples of ei for /i/
(17.2%).
The other vowels can be long or short but are not distinguished in the orthography;
cf. rums /rums/ ‘roomy’ vs. sunus /sunus/ ‘son’ (pace Jones 1965). Long /ā/ (< *-anh-)
is rare (Vennemann 1971: 104), e.g. fāhan (Jn 7:44) ‘to grasp, seize’, 1/3sg pret brāhta
‘brought’. In *-ār(i)ja- (Lat. -ārius), e.g. bokareis ‘scribe’, a is ambiguous (§8.26).
13 In the ninth-century Gotica Parisina, the name Suméōn is transcribed Simeon (vs. Swmaions
in cod. Arg.). Snædal (2015b: 93) argues that this represents the Modern Greek pronunciation and that
“This pronunciation apparently influenced the scribe of cod. Arg. when he wrote Didimus (Jn 11:16) instead
of the expected Didwmus.” But in assimilatory environments, spellings like Síbilla for Síbulla, Eutikhís for
Eutukhís, Idimẽs for Idumẽs, are well known as early as the fifth century bce (Threatte 1980: 261–6). While
Dídumos continued to appear in formal writings, it was pronounced /dídimos/ in Greek and
/dídimus/ in Latin at least four centuries before Wulfila. In short, there is no evidence for how uneducated
Goths pronounced words like Lwstrws.
34 Alphabet and phonology
Many of the letter-sound correspondences seem irrational. There is, for instance, a
digraph ei for /ī/ but no special representation for /u/. The ei spelling is from Greek,
where became a variant for /ī/ as early as 200 bce (Threatte 1980: 387).14
Length distinctions were never crucial in any of the early western scripts. Latin
made no distinction at all (but sometimes used an apex or vowel doubling for long
vowels in inscriptions). Greek had no orthographic distinction for the quantitative
contrast in i, u, a. It was only after hẽta Η evolved to ẽta in East Ionic that Η was used
for / /, and (õ méga ‘big O’) was created by opening one side of O to represent / /
(Jeffery & Johnston 1990: 327). After the monophthongization, ei could be used to
indicate /ī/ in educated varieties even after neutralization of the length contrast in c2
ce (Miller 2014a: 57).
The scripts Wulfila was familiar with made only occasional quantitative distinc-
tions. In the case of ei for /ī/, that was a recent orthographic possibility for Greek, but
the back-vowel parallel was inexact. Although ΟΥ ou had been in use for /u/ since ca.
500 bce (Miller 2014a: 51, w. lit), it is probably not accidental that Wulfila did not use
for short /u/ and for /u/ because (i) Gothic represented /ō/ and Gothic had
no [ōu], and (ii) the Greek model differed. Greek upsilon Υ was [y], not [u], and after
that fronting, the digraph ΟΥ ou could be used for /ŭ/ as well as /u/, more frequently
after the loss of quantity, as in the spelling Oulphílās for Ulfila (§1.4).
In general, the mid vowels are fraught with difficulty. Greek epsilon Ε (è psīlón
‘bare E’) and omicron Ο (ò mīkrón ‘small O’) were not used for Gothic / / and / /. O was
still a high mid vowel (cf. Weingärtner 1858: 28–32), and in learned varieties E could
have remained high mid (Miller 2014a: 57; cf. Luft 1898a: 301). Monophthongization
of Greek yielded low mid [ ] or [ ], closer to the Gothic vowel(s). The educated
pronunciation of eta was [ē] (with high allophones, sometimes [ī]), a good fit with
Gothic /ē/, which derives from and is consistent with the high mid pronunciation
of Greek epsilon, quantity having been neutralized in the second century.
Two post-Classical Greek changes mirrored in Gothic spelling follow:
1. Front vowel raising. The long front vowels shifted towards /ī/, as reflected
in Greek spellings of ([ei] then [ī]) and /i/ for eta (/ / then /ē/). Around
100–150 ce, there is rampant confusion between Η and (Ε)Ι. For instance,
(Lat. Charisius) is also spelled and (Threatte
1980: 166). For Dacia-Moesia-Thrace, cf. éthīka (IGBulg II 687, Nikyup
[n.d.]) for éthēka ‘I made’, Phēlopáppou (IGBulg IV 1992,
Serdica/Sofia [222–35 ce]) for Philopáppou [love-ancestor]
(gen). Although the learned transcription of eta was Gothic e, as in Gabriel
14 The digraph ei for /ī/ remained frequent, as in inscriptions from Dacia, Moesia Inferior, and Thrace
(http://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/168568?bookid=186&location=936), e.g. philoteimíās (IGBulg
II 646, Nikyup [c3]) for philotīmíās ‘ambition’ (gen), philóteimos (IGBulg II 691,
Nikyup [n.d.]) for philótīmos ‘covetous of honor, ambitious’. It was also normal in Latin names,
e.g. Marteĩnos (IGBulg II 515 [n.d.]) for Martīnus, gen Antōneínou (IGBulg II
607, 617, 619, 620, 621, 622, etc. [freq]) beside Antōnínou (IGBulg II 618, Nikyup) for Antōnīnus,
gen Fausteineianoũ (IGBulg II 625, 626, Nikyup [198–209 ce]) for Faustīniānus.
2.6 Phonological system 2: Vowels 35
15 Twelve such examples are mentioned by Leppänen (2016: 106), who counts only Greek words not
limited to Skeireins. The eighteen examples in d’Alquen (1976: 311) include akeitis (Mk 15:36) beside aketis
(Mt 27:48) ‘of vinegar’ from Lat. acētum. A truly accurate count is impossible because of different assump-
tions. However, even if one assumes, with Snædal and others, that acc drakmein (Lk 15:9) ‘drachma, coin’
should be drakman* and that Gothic borrowed this word from Latin (§1.1), a rendering of Gk. acc
drakhmē n cannot be excluded. So Lühr (1985: 151), who assumes post-Wulfilian raising.
16 There are many examples of confusion between and in the inscriptions from Dacia, Moesia
Inferior, and Thrace (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/book/189?location=936), e.g.
aiparkheíās (IGBulg IV 2021, Serdica/Sofia [222–30/31]) for eparkheíās ‘of the province’;
Késara (IGBulg II 637, Nikyup [222–35 ce], 642 [238–40]) for Kaísara (e.g. IGBulg II
638 [236–8]) ‘Caesar’; gunẽka (IGBulg IV 1993, Serdica/Sofia [244–9 ce]) for gunaĩka
‘woman’ (acc).
17 Beck (1973b) argues convincingly that final -ai and -au were monophthongized, and it is possible
that all of the inherited diphthongs except for *eu were monophthongized (for a contrary view see §§2.8,
2.13). The analysis of Gothic with underlying diphthongs plus monophthongization (Greiner 1994; Zukoff
2017: ch. 4) may be motivated, but subsequent neutralization of length (Wurzel 1975) is highly abstract.
Not all the traditional arguments for the monophthongal value are relevant. The digraph ai is never
separated at the end of a line, and au is divided only 1x (Kafarna|[um] Mt 11:23) like the Greek 4-syl-
lable Kapharnaoúm ‘Capernaum’, at a syllable boundary (Schulze 1908: 624). Whether monophthongs
or diphthongs, ai, au belonged to the same syllable, and no break is expected (d’Alquen 1974: 26).
Another bit of evidence is too late to be probative. In the Salzburg-Vienna MS (cod. Vindobonensis 795
3.8), the Old High German scribe rewrites 3sg pret libaida ‘he lived’ as libeda and comments: dipton-
gon .ai. p(ro) e. longa ‘the diphthong ai (is written) for long e’. If not just open syllable lengthening, as
evidence for the long : short contrast, the statement is suggestive (Grienberger 1896: 196f.; Ebbinghaus
1981).
36 Alphabet and phonology
2.7 Breaking
Gothic exhibits a rule that Grimm called Brechung ‘breaking’, whereby radical/stressed
/i/ and /u/ were lowered to ai [ ], au [ ] before r, h (and ), e.g. faíhu ‘chattels’, haúrn
‘horn’, saí an ‘to see’. The long vowels /ī/, /u/ were unaffected: skeirs ‘clear’, lei an ‘to
loan’, þuhta ‘it seemed’ (cf. Cercignani 1984, 1986), as was iu: tiuhan ‘to lead’ (§2.13).
That Twra ‘Tyre’ and the like, even if pronounced with [y] by educated Goths, do not
undergo breaking suggests that Gothic did not have native /y/ (Luft 1898a: 303f.).
As to the phonetics, Howell (1991: ch. 1) argues that Germanic /r/ was apical.
Although Gothic did not participate in rhotacism, Howell mentions that /z/ assimi-
lated to /r/, e.g. [us#rīsan] > *uz-rīsan > urreisan ‘arise’, but not /l/: us-lausein (acc)
‘release, liberation’. Since *-zr- became -rr- but -rz- remained, as in aírziþa ‘deception,
error’, /r/ and /z/ had to be phonetically similar but not enough to merge. Also, -rz-
conditioned breaking, -rr- did not, which can indicate that breaking had become
unproductive, or that the geminate was phonetically different from /r/. Finally, the
Germanic change of *sr- to str- (EDPG 382ff., LHE2 167) points to a coronal allophone.
The phonetic study by Catford (2001) argues that for /z/ to be (re)analyzed as /r/
(i.e. for rhotacism to apply), /r/ had to be an approximant or fricative (cf. Ralph 2002:
715), and the evidence points to an apical trill (Denton 2003: 18). This creates a backing
effect, followed by lowering.
The reflexes of PGmc. */x/ are treated in detail by Howell (1988, 1991, 2018).
Reduction of [x] triggers lowering (Howell 1991: 88f.). The weakening of /x/ in Gothic
is inferred from assimilations and omissions of h (cf. Marchand 1973a: 53f.; GG 69f.).
These are verifiably only as old as the date of the manuscripts, and Janko (1908: 65–8)
assumes late weakening before consonants, reflected in cod. Ambr. A (see -(u)h in
App.), but nothing precludes variation in Wulfila’s time or earlier. For Howell (1988,
1991: 89f.), Gothic lowering is triggered by /h/, which is [+low] (SPE 307). For Kostakis
(2015: ch. 3), that should entail lowering also before [w]. He claims h is still [x] and
breaking is a dissimilation of adjacent [+high] segments. For criticism and discussion,
see Howell (2018), who argues that h was [h] in all positions and the relevant feature
for breaking before /h/ and /r/ was [approximant].
Gothic breaking is denied by Kortlandt (2017) except before /r/ in monosyllabic
words on the grounds that otherwise all that is needed is the Proto-Germanic rule of
lowering /i/, /u/ to /e/, /o/ before a low vowel of the following syllable, and absence of
a later raising of /e/ to /i/ before /r/ and /h/.18
18 Unstressed /e/ was raised to /i/ except before /r/ where unstressed /e/ had likely become [a] in Proto-
Germanic (cf. Stiles 1984; LHE2 147–51). This is inconsistent with raising of unstressed /e/ to [i] before i, j, s
in the proto-stages of Northwest Germanic (Boutkan 1995: 83–9). Boutkan ultimately concedes that rais-
ing was more limited in Northwest Germanic. The proto-stage account and the Proto-Germanic hypothesis
can be reconciled in a wave model in which raising in prehistoric Germanic began in the south (hence
Gothic with raising except before /r/ and /h/) and diffused more limitedly to the north and west with dif-
ferences in the details and chronological ordering. Hill (2017) also argues for lowering of /i/ before /r/ in
Proto-Germanic, e.g. *hir > *her > *hēr (Goth. her) ‘here’. Stressed /e/ raising to /i/ before /i, j/ supposedly
postdated Proto-Germanic (Harðarson 2001: 95–100), but Ringe (2017: 151ff.) supplies counterevidence.
2.7 Breaking 37
In favor of this analysis is the u before /r/ in spaíkulatur (Mk 6:27) ‘bodyguard,
executioner’, fidurdogs ‘four days’ (§7.12), fidurfalþs* ‘fourfold’, fidurragini* ‘tetrarchy’
(§7.6). There is also i before /h/ in gen sg þarihis (Mt 9:16) ‘new’ (?).19 Archaic forms
like fidur- ‘four-’ (see fidwor in App.), which never exhibit breaking, suggest that
breaking originally applied only in stressed syllables.
Partial generalization to unstressed syllables is indicated by uncertainties in the
treatment of loanwords, e.g. dat sg paúrpaúrái (Lk 16:19) ‘in/with purple’ beside
paúrpurái (Mk 15:17, 15:20) ‘id.’. Influence of the first syllable is possible (Snædal 2018).
Breaking has exceptions to the input (forms that should undergo the rule and do not)
and to the environment (outputs in unspecified environments). The factors contributing
to the opacity of breaking are as follows (cf. Moulton 1948: 80f.; Hopper 1969):
1) Borrowings, e.g. Paítrus ‘Peter’, Aífaíson (dat/acc sg) ‘Ephesus’, gaíaínnan
(acc 7x) ‘Gehenna’, Saúdaúma ‘Sodom’ (and -ō- stem gen sg Sau|daumos
Bl 1v.9f.).
2) Lack of stress due to encliticization, as in -uh ‘and’ which often syncopates
the u (Bennett 1972: 110; Nielsen 2010: 434, w. lit).
3) Pretonicity for nih ‘and not’, nuh ‘now?, then?’ (Kortlandt 2017), or better—
4) Analogy in nih after neg ni, and nuh after nu ‘now’ (Voyles 1968: 740;
Cercignani 1979b: 277f., 1984; Kotin 2012: 431).
5) Hiri ‘come here’ (Mk 10:21, Lk 18:22, Jn 11:34, 43), 2du impv hirjats (Mk 1:17),
2pl impv hirjiþ (Mk 12:7) ‘id.’. The radical /i/ has many accounts (Webster
1889: 48f.; Heffner 1929; Hill 2017), e.g. appellative function (Ružička 1951),
superstress (Loewe 1916), accent hirí (Güntert 1929; Rauch 1981: 398f.).
Cercignani (1984) compares hidre ‘hither’. Paul (1894), Hirt (1896), and
Kortlandt (2017) attribute /i/ to the following high vowel or glide, Sinal (1971: 28)
to the following nonobstruent, Ehrismann (1899), Luft (1898b), and Van der
Hoek (2007) to shortening of *hē2r ‘here’ + deictic ptc or impv ī, Wilmanns
(1896: 632) and others to hi- ‘this’, and Hill (2017) to a segmentation hi-ri
< *ke re ‘here, back!’. Although paralleled, hi- is not explained by *kír h2ei
(LIPP 2.294).
6) Assimilation, e.g. urrists* ‘resurrection’ < *us#ris-ti- (NWG 505) plus about
nine other similar forms (GGS 75).
7) P-constructs, such as du ‘to, for’ in du e [for what] ‘why?’, or bi in bi e
(Lk 1:18) ‘how?’, birodeins (Jn 7:12) ‘murmuring’. Some ten bi- constructs
19 Written þarihis with superscript i, this word is a long-standing problem. It seems to render Gk.
ágnaphos ‘uncarded’ and/or Lat. rudis ‘rough’. The line reads: ni ashun lagjiþ du plata fanan þarihis ana
snagan fairnjana (Mt 9:16) ‘no one puts for a patch cloth þarihis on an old garment’, very different from ni
manna plat fanins niujis siujiþ ana snagan fairnjana (Mk 2:21) ‘no one sews a patch of new cloth onto an
old garment’, where niujis ‘new’ translates ágnaphos, Lat. rudis. If þarihis is a mistranslation, it may be a
misspelling for *þairhis to *ter- ‘through’ (LIPP 2.799ff.) or connected to Ved. táruṇa- ‘young, tender’
(GED 355f.). Either way the lack of agreement with fanan is not explained (Roland Schuhmann, p.c.).
W. Krause (1918) takes lagjiþ du as ‘legt hinzu’ and emends the line. See also Ebbinghaus (1981: 19f.)
and GG 39.
38 Alphabet and phonology
occur in breaking contexts (GGS 84). These can involve pretonicity, analogy,
the boundary, or all three.
8) Reduplicating aí / /, as in laí-lot ‘let’, has been attributed to analogy to haíháit
‘called’, etc. (e.g. Kock 1902, w. lit; Kozianka 2004: 252; rejected by Meillet
1909: 271; GGS 83, w. lit), boundary neutralization (Gunnarsson 1973), ad hoc
rules (Wurzel 1975: 322–6), proclisis (Ebbinghaus 1991b), boundary generaliza-
tion with a nonhigh vowel in the following syllable (Bennett 1967a: 7; 1972;
Cercignani 1979a), pretonicity and nonhigh V (Kortlandt 2017), alternating stress
(Fullerton 1991), categorial rule (Beade 1971: 75; Keydana 2006: 70–3), copy +
reduction (Zukoff 2017: 156), uniqueness (Meillet 1909; Cercignani 1986),
unmarkedness (Kozianka 2004), and default height of underspecified vowels
(Kostakis 2015: 93ff.).
The reduplicating syllable is subject to word division, e.g. anasaí|slepun
(1Thess 4:14B) ‘they fell asleep’ (cf. GGS 48). The lack of contraction in (ana)
aí-áuk ‘added’ illustrates the strength of the boundary (Bennett 1972: 112f.).
Waíla ‘well’ from *wel- is regular because of pretonic position (Kortlandt 2017).
Indeed, waíla occurs 27x (7 dupl) before a verb or participle, 13x in all other positions.
Stiles (2018) attributes waila to use in isolation (Mk 12:32, Lk 19:17, Rom 11:20A). He
compares Ital. bene ‘well’ with a lower vowel instead of a diphthong (*biene), but the
reason is disputed, and pretonicity can play a role (Dieter Wanner, p.c.).
The etymology of aiþþau ‘or’ is disputed. Gmc. *i-hwe-þau ‘or in that case’ > *ih(w)þau
> *ehþau > aiþþau (Cercignani 1984: §2.4) potentially explains breaking. Late IE *éti
to h2u > Gmc. *eþ(i)þau ‘and then yet’ (LIPP 2.263, 776; cf. Lühr 2000a: 133) does not.
That / / is due to the word’s pretonic status (Kortlandt 2017) cannot be confirmed.
Traditional breaking applied in pre-Gothic and continued only partial productivity
into Gothic. Additional conditions were added to obviate free rides, such as *beran- >
*biran- > baíran ‘to bear’. Since anti-raising is the flipside of lowering, the derivation
was simply *beran- > /b ran/ <bairan> (Kock 1902: 45f., w. lit; Bennett 1952; Cercignani
1979b, 1980, 1986; Voyles & Barrack 2009: 54; Kortlandt 2017).
Kortlandt admits lowering only before /r/ in monosyllabics, such as baúrgs ‘city’,
baúr* ‘son’ (only dat pl baúrim Mk 11:11, Lk 7:28). Following Brugmann (1913: 176),
he accounts for naúh ‘still’ (< *nu- (e) < *nú 1.kwe LIPP 2.580) by generalization under
stress from an alternant before a low vowel, as opposed to nuh ‘now?, then?’, in which
the pretonic alternant before a high vowel was generalized. For Kortlandt, alleged
Proto-Germanic paradigms like ‘wolf ’ (Goth. wulfs)—nom *wolfaz, (original) gen
*wolfas, voc *wulfe—must have generalized the wulf- alternant at least by the time of
the Ostrogothic redaction. A form like juk* ‘yoke’ should have been *jŏk (*jaúk)
because it goes back to *jukan, and *-an remained -a late in runic inscriptions, at least in
Scandinavia, e.g. horna ‘horn’ (Jutland [400], Strøm [ca. 520–70]). Other generalizations
needed include a lowered variant of *ur in alternating paradigms, e.g. waúrþum
‘we became’ after PP waúrþans ‘(having) become’, frawaúrhts ‘sin’ after gen sg
frawaúrhtáis, etc. But ur is not the only problem: þraíhun ‘thronged’ would have to be
analogical to þraíhans ‘narrow’, and so on.
2.8 Diphthongal ai, au? 39
The debate on the phonological value(s) of the digraphs ai, au has been ongoing since
the 1500s (Stutterheim 1968).
The main alternative to the vowel system in §2.6 claims that Wulfila had diph-
thongs ai, au, that were monophthongized in Ostrogothic prior to the recension.
Carried through to its logical extreme, this entails an enormous number of changes to
Wulfila’s text.
The evidence for diphthongs consists of etymology and Visigothic borrowings into
southwest Romance. For instance, sunáus ‘son’s’ has an inherited diphthong, and
Goth. dáufs* (1x) ‘hard, unfeeling’ turns up in OProv. dauf ‘stupid’. Borrowings in
the Toulouse period [c5] and the later Toledo period require Visigothic diphthongs
(Howard 1969: 213–23; d’Alquen 1974: 84–8; Dietz 1999a: 137; Čevelová & Blažek 2009:
147, 162; de Acosta 2011: 153f., 157f.). Some varieties of Visigothic, then, kept diphthongs
longer than others (cf. Hamp 1956: 269).20
The Arian church and court of the Vandals in Africa may have kept diphthongs in
contrast to colloquial Vandalic with the Ostrogothic monophthongization (Wagner
2002). But this stratification is not entirely clear (Francovich Onesti 2002, 2016; cf.
Wrede 1886). The only preserved religious formula has monophthongs: froia arme
[c5m] ‘Lord, have mercy’ (Goth. frauja *armai). Diphthongs are frequent, e.g. the king
Gaisericus [428–77] (*gaiza-reiks ‘spear-ruler’), later in c5 Geisericus, Gesiric; cf.
Geisirith [c6], Merobaudes (cf. baudus ‘master’ in Luxurius [c6]), etc.
For Wulfilian Gothic, the counterevidence for the dual value of the digraphs as
diphthongs and low mid vowels has been well argued.21 Sehrt (1956), Austefjord
20 This is plausible because the Visigoths were ununited (Liebeschuetz 2011: 212), spread over a vast
area, and in contact with many different languages. From loans into SW Romance, Höfler (1957) argues
that one variety of Visigothic had the South German consonant shift. Another may have had umlaut, but
see Wienold (1967).
21 See, for instance, Weingärtner (1858: 39–43), GGS 30–3, Bennett (1949), Jones (1956, 1958a), Van der
Lee (1962), Marchand (1973a: 74ff.), Cercignani (1986), Greiner (1994), and GG 38–46.
40 Alphabet and phonology
(1973), d’Alquen (1974), Wagner (2002, 2006b), and Snædal (2017a) claim post-
Wulfilian monophthongization. Dietz (1999a, b), Rousseau (2012: 55ff.), Kotin (2012:
45f.), and Kortlandt (2017) follow d’Alquen. The key issues merit review. For d’Alquen
(1974: 30ff.), the digraphs in Wulfila’s text were only diphthongs and did not represent
low mid vowels. Thus raíhts* ‘straight’ had to be written *rihts, waúrd ‘word’ had to be
*wurd, etc.
The fact that alleged ái / áu and aí / aú are all the same before r, h, (Snædal 2013b:
287) would have to be a late orthographic practice, as would spellings like Paúntius*
(dat Pauntiau Mt 27:2 ~ Paunteau 1Tim 6:13A ~ Pautejau B) for Lat. Pontius
(cf. Bennett 1949). Although aw was used to render the diphthong of Lat. cautiōne(m)
in Goth. kawtsjon ‘(by) bond, warranty’ (§10.7), this is an Ostrogothic spelling
(d’Alquen 1974: 33). The same argument for Pawlus (Gk. Paũlos) ‘Paul’ (also Bl 1r.14),
Esaw (Ēsaũ) ‘Esau’ (§2.6) is less cogent because there are no orthographic inconsist-
encies (Jones 1960: 513). If au was a diphthong, -Vw- should not have been needed to
render Greek diphthongs (GG 44f.), which are never written au. That aw is a simple
transliteration (e.g. Wagner 2006b: 290f.; Kortlandt 2017; for early criticism, see
Jellinek 1892: 269) does not explain the -Vw- diphthongs in native Gothic words
(§2.13). If ai were a diphthong in the optative, for instance, why are forms like qimai-u
(Mt 27:49, Mk 15:36) ‘whether he come’ never spelled *qimaju (cf. bai ‘both (of a
kind)’ : bajoþs ‘both’ §3.28)?
Words borrowed into Gothic from two sources can remain distinct (cf. Ohrloff
1876: 96; GGS 179; Ebbinghaus 1982; Lühr 1985: 140). For instance, aípistula* (acc pl
aípistulans Neh 6:27, 19) ‘letter’ represents Lat. epistula ‘id.’, while aípistaúle (12x,
4 dupl) in the Pauline Epistles is Gk. epistolē ‘message, letter, epistle’. Since Wulfila
would have had to spell the latter *ipistule, it is curious that (i) there is no trace of this
spelling, and (ii) in aípistula the only change would have been initial *i to ai.
There are supposedly older spellings like dat Puntiáu (Lk 3:1) for Lat. Pontius that
reflect Wulfila’s original spelling (d’Alquen 1974: 58). D’Alquen (1974: 33) claims that
the Ostrogoths changed Wulfila’s *Pitrus, Puntius* to Paitrus, Paúntius*, but (i) forms
of Paítrus are well attested (52x, 3 dupl, + 3x in cod. Bon.) and there is no residue of
*Pitrus; (ii) there are other possibilities, such as raising before a nasal in Puntius*; cf.
pund (Jn 12:3) ‘pound’ from Lat. pondō ‘by weight’ (GGS 181, NWG 94), Kustanteinus
(Cal 3·g·) for Constantīnus; (iii) it is curious that Puntius* and the like could remain
unchanged (beside ‘changed’ Paúntiáu Mt 27:2 and incorrectly changed Paúnteáu
1Tim 6:13A/B), while (iv) there is no instance of Wulfila’s alleged *rihts for raihts*
‘straight’, *fihu for faíhu ‘chattels’, *burgs for baúrgs ‘city’, etc.; and (v) the variation of
-u and -au in the vocative of sunus ‘son’ is morphological (§3.2). If they had merged
phonologically (d’Alquen 1974: 65), why did the redactors leave so much of what
d’Alquen calls “confusion,” and why only in the singular of -u- stems?
Some textual inconsistencies are most likely scribal, like the different distributions
of final voiced segments (§2.3). With all the scribal differences presupposed by
d’Alquen and his followers, it is a complete mystery that at least one of the scribes did
not fail to transpose Wulfila’s *i, *u to ai, au in some native words. It cannot be argued
2.8 Diphthongal ai, au? 41
that lowering was automatic because of the opacity of breaking (§2.7). This opacity
occurs both in native and borrowed words, and in nativized borrowings as well.
D’Alquen bases his hypothesis on the uncertainty of borrowings. Aggilus ‘angel’
(also agg[i]lus Bl 1r.12) is held to be a residue of Wulfila’s spelling of Gk. ággelos which
became normalized in Gothic. But since *angil- is the form borrowed into all the
Germanic languages (see aggilus, App.), it is irrelevant to Wulfila’s alleged orthography.
Diabulus ‘devil’ allegedly reflects Wulfila’s original spelling while diabaúlus was
Ostrogothicized after Gk. diábolos. Diabaúl- is rare: diabaulus (Jn 6:70), diabaulau
(Jn 8:44), diabau|lu (Bl 2r.22f.). Diabul- occurs elsewhere (Lk 6x, Sk 3x, Eph 1x dupl,
Bl 2v.19). Why was ‘devil’ Ostrogothicized only in John and one of its two occurrences
in cod. Bon.? According to d’Alquen, Matthew and John “are more reliable, more
Wulfilian, than the other two gospels” (1974: 50). By this reasoning, the form should
have been altered everywhere except John. Moreover, since Matthew does not use
diabulus, and the two “Wulfilian” Gospels prefer fem unhulþo ‘(female) devil’ (Mt 5x,
Jn 7x), should this not imply that Wulfila did not use diabulus? (Unless Wulfila was
responsible for Skeireins.) Moreover, diabulus is the Vulgar Latin form (cf. Kortlandt
2001; NWG 202), the source of this word in the rest of Germanic (Feulner 2000: 193f.;
Miller 2012: 55).
For apaústaúlus (34x, 7 dupl) ‘apostle’ (Gk. apóstolos), the spelling apaustul- (2x) is
limited to the accusative: sg apaustulu (Phil 2:25B), pl apaustuluns (Lk 6:13) but
apaustauluns (3x); apaustaul- occurs elsewhere, including gen pl apaustaule (Bl 1v.2).
Paíntekusten (1Cor 16:8A/B) ‘(until) Pentecost’ (Gk. Pentēkostẽs) was ‘Ostrogothicized’
only in the initial syllable. If the Greek high mid o (§2.6) was perceptually close to
Gothic u (post-Wulfilian for Gaebeler 1911: 33), especially in weakly stressed syllables,
scribes could match the Greek spelling or pronunciation. Phonetic similarity can
plausibly explain the typical borrowing of Greek -o- stems as -u- stems (Luft 1898a:
301; GGS 192f; pace Snædal 2018: 189)22 and why Gothic u has the alphabetic slot
and numerical value of Greek omicron (cf. Marchand 1959: 289f.), which bore the
name oũ /u/ (Hermann 1930: 138). It may also explain why Biblical appellatives
(Fareisaius ‘Pharisee’, praufetus ‘prophet’, Judaius ‘Jew’, etc.) are -u- stems mostly in the
singular, and -i- stems in the plural (Börner 1859: 10f.).23
If the scribes were intent on Ostrogothicizing Wulfila’s i and u to ai, au, why did
they not perform other Ostrogothicizations? For instance, since Wulfila’s alleged
diphthongs ái, áu correspond to Ostrogothic ē, ō (Wrede 1891: 165f.), one should
expect many more instances of those spellings. One should also expect instances of
Ostrogothic d for Wulfila’s intervocalic þ (ibid. 171f.), which do not occur (Streitberg
1905).
22 Greek names in -ēs were also borrowed as -u- stems, e.g. Xreskus (2Tim 4:10A) for Gk. Krē skēs, but
because of the Greek gen sg -ou /u/ (Elis 1903: 25; Lühr 1985: 145). Note the variation in the 8th-century
names of the Visigothic kings Gundemar ~ Gondemar, Rudericus ~ Rodericus (Weingärtner 1858: 31).
23 Some Biblical appellatives have -u- stem nom pl -jus, e.g. aggilus ‘angel’ (q.v. in App.), diakaunus*
‘deacon’ (diakaunjus 1Tim 3:12A), galiuga-xristjus ‘false Christs’ (§7.5). For different accounts see
Sturtevant (1951: 54f.), Lühr (2008: 139f.), Yoon (2009: 120).
42 Alphabet and phonology
The graffiti from the Crimea, because of their location and the fact that they are
written in the old sigmatic alphabet, should directly continue the work of Wulfila and
his associates, and not exhibit Ostrogothic influence. Yet they contain no trace of
d’Alquen’s supposed original spellings and in fact attest clear monophthongal au, as in
waurkjands ‘working’, frawaurtis ‘sinful’ (Vinogradov & Korobov 2018: 232f.).
D’Alquen’s account leaves too many anomalies unchanged while simultaneously
presupposing massive changes to a sacred text, a genre traditionally immune to radical
overhauling. D’Alquen and his followers imply that manuscript redactors concocted
their own work. This would be most bizarre. Manuscript copying was serious busi-
ness, with the greatest care attaching to holy texts. There are testimonies from scholars
like Cassiodorus about the arduousness of manuscript copying and how seriously
copyists took their work. It is also known that there were severe punishments for scribes
who did not copy manuscripts precisely (see Metzger & Ehrman 2005: 26–31).24
When one looks at aspects of the Gothic text other than phonology, the greater
likelihood is that it was altered very little by the Ostrogothic manuscript copyists and
that different translators were responsible for many of the differences throughout.
To conclude this section, the changes necessary to the fourth-century holy manu-
script would have been monumental. Literally thousands of forms would have
required Ostrogothicization. The beautifully prepared deluxe codex Argenteus (§1.5)
shows the esteem that was accorded the sacred translation, and this alone should pre-
clude such largescale purges, which are unparalleled in the copying of manuscripts.
Moreover, the graffiti from the Crimea (§1.5) have no trace of d’Alquen’s supposed
Wulfilian forms. While it cannot be excluded that Wulfila’s script had ai, au with mul-
tiple values, like iu and many letters (cf. Wagner 2006b), it must be explained why
even native diphthongs were spelled with w (§2.13).
Vowels may have remained long in Gothic, and not just in root syllables. A contrary
idea is that the relevant contrast was not between long and short vowels but rather
between tense /e/, /o/ and lax / /, / / (see Marchand 1955c; Hamp 1958;
Wurzel 1975: 273ff.; GG 27f., 48f.; and, for early criticism, GGS 46f.). Gothic has alter-
nations which suggest a long/short contrast (cf. Voyles 1968: 727; Vennemann 1971;
Beck 1973b; Voyles & Barrack 2009: 53; Rauch 2011: 51–60; Kotin 2012: 37; Pierce 2013b).
One alternation is antevocalic lowering: /ē ō/ > [ ] before a vowel, in (1).25
24 The papers in Wagner et al. (2013a), esp. Wagner et al. (2013b), confirm that the conservatism of
scribes is often responsible for establishing a standard or ‘classical’ literary language long after the
vernacular has changed. This is the opposite of the assumptions by d’Alquen and his followers.
25 The rule may have originally been more general, to account for trauan ‘trust (in)’ < *truēn- (EDPG 523),
bauan ‘dwell’ < *buan- (EDPG 71), bnauan* ‘rub’; cf. ON *bnúa (pret bneri), (g)núa ‘id.’ (Harðarson 2001: 36;
cf. Sehrt 1956: 4; VEW 124; Beade 1971: 40f.; Greiner 1994: 122f.).
2.9 The long : short contrast 43
(1) seþs ‘seed’ : saian [s an] ‘to sow’ (< *sē(j) an-)
stojan ‘to judge’ : stauïda [st iða] ‘judged’ (< *stōwida Harðarson 2001: 36)
For discussion, see Paul (1880, 1882), Bennett (1967a: 8f.), d’Alquen (1974: 146–53),
Schmierer (1977: 47–54). For d’Alquen, lowering was pre-Gothic, and antevocalic
shortening pre-Ostrogothic, but shortening in Wulfila’s Gothic (e.g. Sehrt 1956: 3ff.;
Vennemann 1978: 342) would have phonemicized the output of breaking (Patrick
Stiles, p.c.). Valid alternations with other vowels are lacking (pace Ružička 1949: 154f.).
This alternation occurred in stressed syllables. Contrast waíwoun ‘they blew (Van
Helten 1896: 471; GGS 59; Fullerton 1991: 12), unless the /ō/ is morphological, after
laílotun ‘they let’, -taítokun ‘they touched’, etc. (cf. Douse 1886: 48f.), or sg waíwo*,
saíso ‘sowed’, etc. (GGS 86; cf. Wurzel 1975: 326f.), which may be due to systemic pres-
sure (R. Beck 1975: 21). Antevocalic lowering occurs in loanwords, e.g. Gothic dat
Trauadai (2Cor 2:12A/B, 2Tim 4:13A) from Gk. Trō(i)ás ‘the Troad’ (Luft 1898a:
305; Beck 1973b: 121), or transcribes v.l. Troádi (Snædal 2018: 218). Lowering fails in
Ioanan (Neh 6:18) ‘J(eh)ohanan’ (Van Helten 1896: 471).
A second alternation is the Sievers’ Law realization of *-je- as -ji- after a light
syllable and -ei- /ī/ after heavy, e.g. satjiþ ‘sets’ but sokeiþ ‘seeks’ (Beade 1972; d’Alquen
1988: 38f.; Suzuki 1995; Barrack 1989, 1998, 2010; Kiparsky 2000; Riad 2004; Pierce
2006, 2013b). This alternation is synchronically opaque (§2.12) and therefore of
limited value.
Since phonological alternations can be residues of past changes (cf. Marchand
1955c: 84), spelling variations are a safer criterion. By Snædal’s count (2013b: 287),
in nonborrowed vocabulary there are 74 (partially lexical) instances of ei for /ē/ (38
with i, ei, or j in the following syllable: Hirt 1896) and 44 of e for /ī/ (cf. Bethge 1900:
33f.; Marchand 1956b: 144–7; 1973a: 50f.). The environmental conditioning in Kock
(1912) can be an accident of the small corpus. By contrast, there are only 3 ei for /ĭ/ and
9 i for /ī/. The greater confusion among the front long vowels suggests a change in
progress. It is usually assumed to be a post-Wulfilian (Ostrogothic) raising of /ē/, /ō/
to /ī/, /u/ (d’Alquen 1974, e.g. 131; Nielsen 2010: 431; Kortlandt 2017), but (i) nothing
precludes variation in Wulfila’s time, and (ii) u is written for /ō/ only 4x (Marchand
1956b: 147; GG 34; Snædal 2013b: 288). A front mid vowel raising in progress suggests
that Gothic still has the long/short contrast (cf. §2.6, ftn. 17). It cannot be assured that
Gothic kept distinctive vowel length but (i) consonant length is distinctive (§2.3), (ii)
North and West Germanic preserved distinctive length, (iii) word breaks are partly
contingent on vowel length (§2.11), (iv) if Gothic kept (any of) the inherited diph-
thongs, it probably kept vowel length, (v) overlong strings shorten (§2.3), and (vi) long
vowels do not undergo breaking (§2.7). If Gothic lost vowel length contrasts, the opa-
city of breaking is far greater than stated. Given the relative productivity of breaking
(with some generalizations to unstressed syllables), we should expect occasional slips
like *lai an for lei an ‘to loan’, *þauhta for þuhta ‘it seemed’, etc. It is doubtful that
the tense reflexes of the long vowels would have been so distinctive from the short/lax
vowels as to block all breaking.
44 Alphabet and phonology
26 The SH has a long history since Thausing (1863) (see Miller 1994: 3f.; 2014b: 141ff.). Sonority involves
the ability of segments to bear tone and occur as syllable nuclei. Vowels with a high first formant frequency,
i.e. low vowels, are the most sonorous. Those of lower frequency are less sonorous, high vowels being the
lowest in sonority of the vowels. Next come consonantal segments that are most vowel-like (glides then
liquids then nasals), and finally obstruents, continuants, then stops. The sonority hierarchy thus involves
the arrangement of segments in the syllable outward from a nucleus of higher sonority to an onset and/or
coda of preferentially lower sonority. The alternate position of /s/ at both ends of the SH is the major
crosslinguistic exception (Levin 1985).
2.10–11 Sonority, word form, and syllabification 45
but probably with /r/ devoiced (Page 1995), and therefore of lower sonority. Old English
retained nonsyllabic resonants in the scansion of early poetry (Fulk 1989; Page 1995),
but later anaptyxis, as often (Hall 2003, 2006; Damsma & Versloot 2015), repaired the
SH violation: pre-OE /akr/ > *[akr] > *aker > OE æcer ‘field’ (> acre).
For Gothic /l/, cf. acc sg þwahl* ‘washing; baptism’ (Sk 2.2.4 written þwalh, an
argument against syllabic [l] (Schulze 1927: 115; Page 1995: 240; see also Bennett 1960:
113ff.), acc sg swumfsl ‘(swimming) pool’ (Jn 9:11), written swumslf̯ (Jn 9:7 cod. Arg.)
with f possibly erased. The frequently cited fugls* ‘bird’ does not exist. Only plural
forms are attested: nom fuglos (5x), dat fuglam (Mt 6:26).
For an early final nasal, cf. Goth. witum ‘we know’ (< PIE *wid-mé via *witm and
anaptyxis or < *witmm(e) with u from 3pl witun? cf. LHE 2 145). Contrast Goth. bagms
‘tree’, acc kelikn ‘(watch) tower’ (2x), ‘loft’ (Mk 14:15), acc liugn ‘lie’ (§7.5), razn ‘house’,
rign ‘rain’ (Mt 7:25, 27). These final resonants are not likely to have been syllabic (Schulze
1927: 113ff.; Ebbinghaus 1970; Page 1995: 240; pace Greiner 1994: 61). If the r in timrjan*
had been syllabic, insertion of b would not have been motivated (timbrjan ‘to build’).
Except for *sn and*sl (e.g. Goth. slepan* ‘sleep’), Germanic obeys the constraint that
onset consonants must occupy different places of articulation. This excludes initial
*bm, *pm, *fm, *bw, *fw *dl, *tl, *dn, *tn (Sinal 1971: 20f.; Suzuki 1987a: 27–31; Harbert
2007: 69). Gothic has exceptions like þliuhan (Lk 3:7) ‘flee’ (OHG fliohan, OE flēon
flee), þlahsjan* ‘frighten’ (only PrP þlahsjandans 2Cor 10:9B), etc., but labiality is
preserved in old *-o- grade forms: Goth. flodus (Lk 6:49) ‘flood’, faíflokun (Lk 8:52)
‘bewailed’, etc. (Woodhouse 2000b; cf. Fulk 2018: 123). Affricates like Germ. pf [pf ] do
not violate the constraint which applies only to clusters (Harbert 2007: 71).
An alleged problem for the SH is the presence of initial wr-, wl- in early Germanic
(Harbert 2007: 68), as in (3).
(3) a) wr-: Goth. wrikan* (3pl wrikand etc.) ‘persecute’, OE wrecan wreak, ON
reka ‘drive, pursue’, OHG rechan / rehhan ‘press; punish; avenge’
b) wl-: Goth. wlits (Jn 11:44) ‘face; appearance; form’, OS wliti ‘sheen; form’,
OE wlite ‘beauty, splendor’, ON litr ‘color; countenance’
Since the older Indo-European languages have wr- (and not *rw-) onsets (but not *yr-),
this a problem for phonological theory involving the features of /w/, /r/, and /l/ (Miller
1994: 22ff.). It has been claimed that /w/ behaves more like an obstruent both before
/l/, /r/, and in forms like Goth. snáiws (only Mk 9:3) ‘snow’, acc sg lew (3x, 1 dupl)
‘opportunism’ (A. M. Sturtevant 1940). Final w in waúrstw ‘work’ is argued by
Vennemann (1985: 206–17) to represent a fricative, but Barrack (1997: 4f.) counters
that the glides were preserved as such and that the final consonant is labialized. It is
also possible that the w is to be taken at face value (§2.12). More generally, liquids,
nasals, and glides patterned alike in word-final position in Gothic, except that /j/
invariably syllabified: */kunj/ > kuni ‘race’ (Barrack 1997: 4; Heidermanns 2007a: 211f.).
Onset wr-, wl- were unstable. In most Germanic languages the change of /w/ to
/v/ solved the problem, and in many instances the cluster was simplified in the older
language, as in the forms in (3) from Old Norse and Old High German, except for
46 Alphabet and phonology
Middle Frankish (Findell 2009: 37, w. lit). In English, which alone kept /w/, those
sequences disappeared. A word like wrong has a labialized (lip-rounded) /r/, viz. /rw ŋ/.
All Old English words with wl- in the OED are obsolete or extinct.
however, breaks for which Prokosch’s Law is irrelevant, e.g. ïupaþ-ro (Sk 2.1.22f.,
2.1.25–2.2.1) ‘from above’ (Frey 1989), despite the preference for -V-þr- divisions.
Residues of syllabifications like ïupaþ.ro are expected when one considers that the
Gothic syllabification -VC.RV- (Riad 1992: ch. 2; 2004; Suzuki 1995; Pierce 2013b) was
inherited from Indo-European (Miller 1994; Byrd 2010a, 2015).
To conclude this section, line-end word divisions support the hypothesis that
Gothic retained long vowels and heavy syllables. These remained relevant for syllabi-
fication. Morphology was the other major determinant of breaks, as in gatarh-jan
(Sk 4.4.17f.) ‘to censure’, wahs-jan (Sk 4.1.22f) ‘to increase’, ains-hun (Sk 8.4.2f.) ‘(not)
one’, an-hun (Sk 6.4.4f.) ‘ever’ (Hechtenberg-Collitz 1906). Since þatainei ‘only’
would have to syllabify as þa.tai.nei, one break in Skeireins, namely þatai-nei (4.4.14f.),
is correct, but þat-ainei (7.2.23f.) is divided at the word boundary (Pierce 2002: 248).
There is no evidence (pace Streitberg 1909: 177) that gamelid ïst (Lk 3:4) ‘it is written’
was ever one word. If it were, the boundary should have been eliminated, and ist
would be written with regular i, not ï.
27 Timing is the phonetic underpinning of the metrical foot (Miller 2010: i. ch. 9). Two ideas of the foot
prevail in Germanic studies: (i) the maximally and minimally bimoraic foot (e.g. Riad 1992) and (ii) the
moraic trochee (Smith 2004). Goering (2016) revives an older account that foots the first syllable, regardless
of weight, but allows maximally bimoraic feet elsewhere. All three accounts make the same predictions on this
set of forms: (wæ)(pe.nu), (sci.pu) have full foot structures, while *(wī)fu, *(we.ro)du have a defective portion
whose nucleus deletes. See also Kim (2000: 39–44; 2001) for a similar analysis and critique of previous
theoretical approaches to Sievers’ Law. Boer (1918: 205–11) offers a rhythmic account using musical notation.
28 The musical notation, discussed at length in Miller (2010: i. ch. 9), is a visual heuristic to illustrate at
a glance the duple timing (two beats and multiples thereof), which is not the same as bimoraicity. A word
preferentially has two syllables and two beats (or multiples thereof). Since one beat is the minimal refer-
ence of duration, a quarter note (crotchet) has one beat, and a half note (minim) two beats. Two quarter-
notes and one half-note constitute two beats each, and the dactylic structure of wæpenu is four beats.
Inherited *wordu, *wīfu, *werodu were unstable with three beats (triple timing), and underwent apocope
to yield duple timing. The frequency of dactyls in natural language (cf. Miller 2018) causes one to wonder
whether in Homeric hexameter they must be derived (Kiparsky 2018) or can evolve sua sponte.
48 Alphabet and phonology
These alternations are traditionally derived by Sievers’ Law (Sievers 1878a–b, but cf.
already GGS 34), according to which a glide remained after a light syllable but devel-
oped a preceding homorganic vowel after a heavy syllable. That is, *-VCj/wV- remains
but *-VCCj/wV- > *-VCCij/uwV- and *-VCj/wV- > *-VCij/uwV-.29
Sievers’ Law (SL) is synchronically opaque. There are exceptions in both directions; cf.
arbjis (Eph 1:14, 18A/B, Col 3:24B) ‘of the inheritance’ (arbi), reikjis (1Cor 15:24A) ‘of rule’
(reiki*), beside faúramaþleis (Neh 5:14, 18) ‘of the governor’ (faúramaþli*), etc. (GGS 104).
There is also considerable variation, e.g. gen sg waldufnjis (Eph 2:2A/B, 1Cor 15:24A) ~
waldufneis (Sk 7.1.5) to waldufni ‘power, authority’, or gawairþjis (6x, 2 dupl) ~ gawairþeis
(4x, 3 dupl) to gawairþi ‘peace’. Marchand (1955a: 101f., 1973a: 73) mentions some 40 excep-
tions, and many are collected in Vennemann (1985: 195–202) and Kim (2000: 67f.; 2001:
103ff.). Kim shows that -ja- stem nouns on light bases obey SL with a gen sg -jis without
exception, but only 35% of the heavy or polysyllabic stems have -eis in obeisance of SL.
In sum, SL is largely morphologized to -ja- stem nouns and the third person singu-
lar nonpast indicative of -ja- stem verbs, and is heavily opaque even there. The ten-
dency was to level alternations in favor of paradigmatic uniformity.
SL was opaque in pre-Germanic and reactivated in some environments. Stausland
Johnsen (2009) makes it a late rule. At the very least, it had to (re)apply after the
change of syllabic resonants to -uR-; cf. *wrg-yé-ti > *wurg-jé-ti (-uR-) > *wurg-ijé-ti
(SL) > *wurk-iji-þ(i) (GL etc.) > Goth. waúrkeiþ ‘works’ (cf. Marchand 1956a: 287;
Kim 2001: 102; Schaffner 2001: 62; Byrd 2015: 185–207; LHE2 144).
The same duple-timed alternations are found in Gothic -ja- verbs (cf. GGS 34;
Mahlow 1879: 43; Kim 2000: 65ff.; 2001: 120ff., w. lit):
(6) Gothic -ja- stem verbs (3sg)
a) satjiþ ‘sets’
b) sandeiþ [sandīþ] ‘sends’ /sand-i-iþ/
c) riqizeiþ [rikwizīþ] ‘will be(come) dark’ /rikwiz-i-iþ/ (cf. §6.13 sub (68))
Like riqizeiþ is mikileid (Lk 1:46) ‘magnifies, glorifies’. No other -ja-verb has a base
with two light syllables.
29 See Hermann (1923: 277ff.), Erdmann (1972), Seebold (1972), Mayrhofer (1986: 164–8), Bammesberger
(1988), Riad (1992: ch. 2), Barrack (1989, 1998, 2010), Kiparsky (2000), Kim (2000, 2001), Pierce (2003a,
2006), Müller (2006), Barber (2013), Cooper (2015), Byrd (2010b, 2015: 183–207), Ringe (2006: 116–31;
2017: 18f.). The rule possibly applied originally to all resonants.
2.13 Diphthongs and related 49
30 The Greek spelling changes of Lat. Sevērus, acc Sevērum in the inscriptions from Dacia, Moesia
Inferior, and Thrace suggest a change from [w] to [v] in progress during the first third of c3. Early in c3, v is
rendered with upsilon: gen Seuē rou (IGBulg II 637 [222–35 ce]), acc Seuẽron 628 [209–
11 ce], 637 [222–35 ce]. A conservative /w/ pronunciation is suggested by the digraph ou: gen
Seouē rou (IGBulg II 630, 631 [209–12 ce], 633 [212/213 ce]. Latin fricativization is indicated by Greek
50 Alphabet and phonology
If so, there is a period of time in which the Goths could have borrowed evangelium in
the Vulgar Latin form /ĕwangē ́l(i)jo/, possibly in the dat/abl evangeliō (cf. Lühr 1985:
144, w. lit). Because of the constant -j- and the -e- instead of -ai-, aíwaggeljo has been
thought to be an early borrowing (GGS 188) from Latin (Kortlandt 2001). Francovich
Onesti (2011: 203) takes it from Greek, but a borrowing from Latin in c3 is plausible.
Since Gk. prevocalic i is seldom transcribed j (Gaebeler 1911: 60), antevocalic j points
to an earlier borrowing (Gaebeler 1911: 23, 52; Lühr 1985: 141) or a fully adapted form.
Such is Marja for ‘Mary’ (Gk. Maríā) except as Jesus’ mother’s name, which is usually
Mariam (Gk. Mariám), but -ia forms (Maria, Marian, Mariin, Mariins) occur only in
Luke (Odefey 1908: 93f., w. lit). Mak(a)idonja (Gk. Makedoníā) ‘Macedonia’ reflects a
colloquial form (Gaebeler 1911: 14, 50–60; Snædal 2018: 207) with o by OSL (Corazza
1969: 91f.). It patterns with other geographical names (e.g. Akaja, Antiaukia*, Asia*,
Galatia*, Swria*) in having nom/acc -a, but i- stem gen and dat (Lühr 1985: 141).
In the unassimilated foreign word paraskaíwe (cf. Lühr 1985: 151), -aiw- is probably
an exact transliteration of the Greek diphthong (cf. Elis 1910: 67).
For [ u] before a vowel in Hebrew words, w is doubled (Schulze 1905: 746), suggest-
ing a lost Greek tradition (GGS 38): Aíwwa [ uwa] (1Tim 2:13A/B) ‘Eve’ (Gk. Eúā,
Hebr. Ḥ awwāh), Laiwweis (Lk 5:29) ‘Levi’ (Gk. Leuís), Laiwweiteis (Neh 7:1, 43) ‘Levites’
(Gk. Leuĩtai). Contrast Daweid (Mk 2:25+) ‘David’ (Gk. Dau(e)íd, Hebr. Dawid) with
a syllable boundary [da.wīd] indicated by line-end word breaks Da|weid (Bl 1r.7f.),
Da|weidis (Mk 12:35) ‘of David’ (cf. Schulze 1908: 623f.).
Several other possible diphthongs are considered next in connection with words
ending in -Cw or -Cu. For convenience, these are divided into four groups (7–10).
(7) Group 1
a) gáidw (acc sg Phil 2:30A/B) ‘lack, deficiency’ (acc pl gáidwa 2Cor 9:12B,
Col 1:24A/B) < *gaidwa- (NWG 485, EDPG 163)
b) triggws [freq] ‘faithful, trustworthy’ < *triwwa- < *trew-a- (§2.14)
c) waúrstw ‘work, deed’ < *wurh-s-twa- < *wrǵ-s-two-m (Meid 1964: 240;
NWG 482; EDPG 600)
(8) Group 2
a) (weina)triu (Jn 15: 1, 5) ‘grapevine’ (cf. acc pl weinatriwa 1Cor 9:7A) <
*trewa- (NWG 201f., EDPG 522, LHE2 118)
b) naus ‘dead man’ < *nawi- (NWG 186, EDPG 385)
c) qius (Rom 7:9A) ‘living, alive’ (§3.6) < *kwiwa- (NWG 528, EDPG 320)
d) kniu* ‘knee’ (§3.2) < *knewa- (NWG 201, EDPG 296, LHE2 109)
e) þius* ‘boy, servant’ (§3.3) < *þewa- (EDPG 541; see þius* in App.)
(9) Group 3
a) lasiws (2Cor 10:10B) ‘weak’ < *lasiwa- (EDPG 327)
b) þiwadw (acc sg Gal 4:24B) ‘slavery’ (hapax) < *þewadwa- (NWG 484)
spellings with b: nom Sebẽros (IGBulg II 716, Nikyup [n.d.]), acc Sebẽron, gen
Sebē rou (IGBulg II 636, Nikyup [198–217 ce]), ( ) (IGBulg II 640, Nikyup [ca. 234 ce]).
2.13 Diphthongs and related 51
(10) Group 4
a) áiw (acc sg Mt 9:33+ [freq]) ‘age; (n)ever’ < *aiwa- (NWG 200, EDPG 16)
b) fráiw ‘seed; descendant(s)’ < *fraiwa- (HGE 111, NWG 163, EDPG 152)
c) hláiw (acc) ‘grave’ < *hlaiwa- (HGE 174, NWG 161, EDPG 228)
d) sáiw* ‘lake’ (acc mari-saiw 3x ‘marshland’ §7.24) < *saiwi- (saiws* App.)
e) snáiws (Mk 9:3) ‘snow’ < *snaiwa- (NWG 56, EDPG 460)
f) lew (acc sg 3x, 1 dupl) ‘opportunism’ < *lēwa- (NWG 61, EDPG 335)
g) alew* ‘(olive) oil’ (cf. gen sg alewis Lk 16:6, dat sg alewa Mk 6:13, Lk 7:46)
from Lat. oleum (§1.1, ftn. 4)
It has frequently been noticed (e.g. GGS 65, w. lit) that (i) analogy cannot explain all
the differences, and (ii) the outputs are linked to syllable structure.31 In fact, the
simplest account is by output constraints based on the duple time preferences in §2.12.
For Group 1, assuming that the /w/ was retained during the variation phase of the
loss of final syllables, the alternative would be three-quarter timed *gáidu, *trigg(w)u,
*waúrstu, blocked by (i) the preference for duple-timed monosyllables and (ii) the
avoidance of triple-timed forms.
Duple-timed disyllabics top the preferential hierarchy and rarely contract. In Gothic,
they are stable, as in sium ‘we are’, siuþ ‘you are’ without a glide, or sijum, sijuþ with
a glide (cf. §§2.3, 5.24). For the history of these and the constraint against *Cj- see
Barber (2013: 21ff.) and especially Byrd (2010b). For Group 2, therefore, disyllabic
qiu-, triu are optimal, excluding potential alternatives.32 More traditionally (e.g. Van
Helten 1903: 71), the difference between qius and lasiws was accounted for by virtue of
the unstressed syllable in the latter.
For Group 3, the optimality of disyllabic þiwadw, lasiws blocked the syllabifying of
/w/ that would have yielded (least optimal) triple-timed trisyllables *þiwadu, *lasius.
For Heidermanns (2007a: 219), lasiws is exceptional.
The apparent diphthong iw in lasiws raises the issue of iu in niujis ‘new’ and the like.
If iu were just two successive vowels, one would expect breaking (§2.7), e.g. *þliaúhan
for þliuhan (Lk 3:7) ‘to flee’, *riaúrjand for riurjand (1Cor 15:33A) ‘they corrupt’, etc.
31 Schmierer (1977: 39f.) posits a constraint that w alternates with u only after i, but note lasiws. For
naus (cf. acc pl nawins Lk 9:60), he needs monophthongization of /naw+s/ (p. 56). His constraint, even
if it were descriptively adequate, is peculiar, having no possible phonetic basis. It is either an illusion due
to accidental gaps or the result of metrically based processes.
32 It is sometimes assumed (e.g. GGS 44) that qius and -triu contain diphthongal iu, but triwa and IE
*drewom (see triu in App.) weaken that assumption (Stutterheim 1968: 447). Heidermanns (2007a: 217)
assumes diphthong formation. Secondary diphthongization followed by monophthongization of *nau- is
plausible (cf. Schmierer 1977: 56), but qiu- with diphthongization should be spelled *qiws. Note moreover
the indisputably disyllabic niun ‘nine’ from PGmc. *ne(w)un < earlier *newunt < PIE (h1)néwn (LHE2 229).
Skadus (Col 2:17B) ‘shade, shadow’ is often listed as a Group 2 word, but this is a -u- stem *skad-u-
(GGS 65, NWG 485, EDPG 438); cf. dat sg skadau (Mk 4:32, Lk 1:79). For the changes following merger
with the -u- stems in the nom sg, see Groscurth (1930: 51), NWG 193, Heidermanns (2007a: 213ff.), Yoon
(2009: 114), Thöny (2013: 34f., 115–19). The account in Sturtevant (1957a) is wide of the mark.
Since waurstw must have underlying /w/, and skadu- underlying /u/ to predict the morphological and
phonological differences, -triu cannot have /u/ (pace Beade 1971: 36), but is more likely underspecified.
Wurzel (1975: 292ff.) derives all forms from underlying / / by means of ad hoc generative rules.
52 Alphabet and phonology
Not all examples of iu can be tautosyllabic (rich list in Ebbinghaus 1960, against whose
conclusions, see Jones 1962). That in niun ‘nine’, for instance, is disyllabic and divided
ni|un at Lk 15:4 (Braune & Ebbinghaus 1961: 11; Voyles 1968: 723; Cercignani 1988: 182).
Moreover, iu alternates with ju, as in ïudáiwiskon ‘to live as a Jew’ beside judáiwisks*
‘Jewish’ (§2.2), just as Jaurdanau (Sk 4.1.12f.) ‘the Jordan’ alternates with Iaurdanau
(Lk 4:1), etc. (Jones 1962: 74). There are no other examples of iw in that environment
to establish a clear difference between it and iu. The latter is usually taken to be [iu]
(e.g. Riad 1992: 56; Voyles 1968: 722f., 1981: 11f.; see the literature in Jones 1958b: 353,
Bennett 1967a: 10f., and Wienold 1969, who argue for a monophthong), but [i u] is dif-
ficult to exclude especially if iw is [iu] (or just morphophonemic spelling?). Those
who propose /ȳ/ (e.g. Weingärtner 1858: 37f.) do not explain why iu is never spelled
w (GrGS 35). To circumvent that, some suggest / / (e.g. Cercignani 1986, q.v. for other
proposals), but any difference beyond graphic is impossible to determine.
Nom pl *sun-iwiz developed to sunjus ‘sons’ rather than *suniws (cf. Heidermanns
2007a: 212) when vowel deletion in final syllables was operational. The final vowel was
deleted everywhere in Germanic (Jones 1979: 250ff., w. lit). By contrast, lasiws derives
from a synchronic stem [[[ lasi] wa] +s] (cf. Beade 1971: 36, 129). Misled by the super-
ficial similarity of *suniwiz and *lasiwaz, Jones (1979: 252) wrongly makes the sunjus
type analogical. Both are regular outputs of differently constituted morphological
strings. For Ružička (1949: 161ff.), /i/ was deleted before /a/ in that environment.
For Group 4, after loss of final syllables, */aiw/ could have yielded pre-Gothic *aju,
with áiw restored from the rest of the paradigm. However, based on forms like OE
snāw ‘snow’, diphthong formation yielded a heavy monosyllable as in Group 1. From
the etymological viewpoint, and if the spelling like other diphthongs is trustworthy,
the words in this group should contain long diphthongs [ u], [ēu]. Even if they were
unstable, they could have been maintained by the long vowel in the rest of the para-
digm. The borrowing alew* /alēu/ ‘oil’, though disyllabic, fit the diphthongal pattern.33
The examples in the four groups are all from nonverbal paradigms. The verb
wilwan ‘seize’ has a 3sg pret fra-walw (Lk 8:29) ‘seized’, which does not fit the patterns
above. However, the surfacing of underlying /w/ (traditional analogical restoration) is
motivated. It would be the only form of wilwan without root-final /w/, and is reminis-
cent of restored saí ‘see’, which notoriously alternates with saí ‘see; behold; lo’ (see sai
in App.).
The constraints in §2.12 and this section argue in favor of a consonantal value of /w/
in -Cw strings in final syllables (cf. Heidermanns 2007a; Thöny 2013: 119). Several
vocalic values have been suggested (detailed history in Jones 1979: 139–71). One is [y],
which is contingent on a change of *wa to *wi to *ui (after heavy syllable) to */y/.
There is no evidence for this series of changes, pace Boutkan (1995: 407–10) and Kortlandt
(2017), who treat a problem of timing and constraints by means of rule ordering. Part
33 Heidermanns (2007a: 217) assumes the /w/ remained because Gothic did not admit long diphthongs.
On my account, they would be secondary, but since /alēu/ and /alēw/ would have the same number of
syllables, the same prosodic conditions can derive either one by specifying different phonetic details. The
latter, of course, allows for the possibility that au and ai could also be diphthongs that sounded different.
2.14 Verschärfung 53
of the rationale derives from the alleged parallel with vocalization of final /j/, which is
misleading because /j/ always vocalizes as /i/, while the reflexes of /w/ would be split
between [u] and [y] on that account. Also, the distribution of -u- after a light syllable
beside -w- after a heavy syllable is not that simple either, as shown above. Finally, the
empirical evidence suggests that, since the entire paradigm has waúrstw- (gen
waúrstwis, dat waúrstwa, etc.), the relevant starting point for nom waúrstw should be
*worstwa > /worstw/ [w rstw]—especially since Gothic has no SL variants for /w/
(GG 58, Heidermanns 2007a: 215).
In light of clusters like that in faúrwalwjands (Mt 27:60) ‘rolling in front’, there is no
a priori reason to deny the nonvocalic value of the final /w/ in waúrstw, þiwadw, etc.
To do so, moreover, violates the generalization that is vocalic only in foreign words.
2.14 Verschärfung
The classic formulation of Holtzmann’s Law (Holtzmann 1835: 862f.), first called
Verschärfung by Bechtel (1885), is that the glides /j/ and /w/ were geminated between
a short accented vowel and a vocalic suffix. Despite attempts by Braune (1884) to iden-
tify a Gotho-Nordic isogloss by positing a Gothic shift of *ggj to ddj, as noted by Stiles
(2013: 7), the geminates [jj], [ww] remained in West Germanic, but were strengthened
independently to ddj, ggw in East Germanic, and to ggj, ggw in North Germanic
(Rösel 1962: 48f., w. lit; Cathey 1970; Haugen 1976: 58; Suzuki 1991; Voyles 1992: 25f.;
Petersen 2002).34
Examples follow.
(11) *bleww-an : *blau /blaww-/ : *bluww-um : *bluww-an- ‘strike’ [?*bhleuH-2 LIV 90]
Goth. bliggwan* : usblaggw : usbluggwun : usbluggwans ‘beat, flog’
OHG bliuwan : blau : blû(w)um : gi-blû(w)an [û(w) = *uww]
(12) *breww-an : *brau : *bruww-um : *bruww-an- ‘brew’ [*bhreuh1- EDPG 76]
[restructured like Goth. rinnan*, rann, -runnun ‘run’]
OE brēowan : brēow : bruwon : browen (ON brugginn ‘brewed’ 1x)
(13) *keww-an : *kau : *kuww-um : *kuww-an- ‘chew’ [*ǵyeuH- LIV 168, EDPG 286]
ON tyggva / tyggja : togg : tuggum : tugginn
OHG kiuwan : kou : kuwun : gi-kuwan
OE cēowan : cēaw : cuwon : cowen
[follows flēogan : flēag : flugon : flogen ‘fly’]
(14) *haww-an : *heu (?) : ??? : *hauww-an- ‘hew, cut down’ [*keh2u-2 LIV 345f.]
ON hoggva (< NGmc. *haggwan) : hjó : hjoggum / hjuggum : hogg(v)inn
‘strike, smite, kill’
(20) *d(u)wóy(h1) / d(u)wó-h1 (LHE2 66, 118, 318) or d(u)wó-h1e (MPIE 2.3.1) ‘two’
> PGmc. *twai / *twō : gen pl *dwoyh1-ohxom > *twaijōn
The more usual assumption is that the direct output was *twajjō(n), whence Goth.
twaddje, ON tveggja, OHG zweio (Isidor zuueiio). Alternatively, for Suzuki, the
changes in (20) would have been *dwoy.Ho- > *twaj.o- > *twaj.jo-.
Consider next the word egg:
(21) *ajj-az ‘egg’ (OHG ei, dat sg eiie, OE æg, ON egg egg); cf. gen pl *ajj-ōn >
Goth. *addje (cf. Crim. nom pl ada)
NGmc. *aggjō > ON eggja ‘of eggs’ (whence nom egg by
paradigmatic generalization of the more characterized alternant)
On one account *ajja- ‘egg’ is a lengthened-grade derivative of *h2éw-is / gen *h2w-éi-s
(cf. Lat. avis) ‘bird’ (EDPG 17), i.e. *h2ōw-yó- (> *ōwyóm > Gk. ō(ï)ón ‘egg’). To derive
*ajja- from this, Kroonen (2013: xxi, xl, 17) needs loss of w after /ō/ (disputed by Neri
2016: 10f.), pretonic shortening,35 and Holtzmann’s Law triggered by the following
accent, i.e. *ōwjó- > *ŏjó- > *ojjó- (> *ajja-). Accent conditioning goes back to Kluge
(1879) and Bechtel (1885), and was refuted by many (see Collinge 1985: 94f., w. lit).
For Neri (2016: 18f.), *(hx)oh1-h2uy-ó- (n) ‘that by the bird’ (or ō-h2uy-o- Schindler
1969; *h2o-h2wy-o- LIPP 2.330; for defense of the etymology, see also Stiles 2016: 443,
w. lit) > *ō.uyó- > *ōwyó- (Gk. ō(ï)ón ‘egg’). In north Europe *[uy] became *[iy]
(Hill 2012, LHE2 161), hence *ōyyo-, which by Osthoff ’s Law of tautosyllabic shorten-
ing became *ŏyyo-, then, with vowel changes, Gmc. *ajja-. Since Verschärfung applied
only after an accented short vowel (cf. Müller 2007: 88; Neri 2009: 6), at that stage all
that is needed is ambisyllabicity, i.e. */áj.ja-/ (Suzuki 1991; Petersen 2002; cf. Rowe
2003: 258f., considering other phonetic accounts).
For another source of a geminate glide, cf. Goth. daddjan* ‘suckle’, OSw. dæggia ‘id.’
< *dhh1oy-éye- (cf. LIV 139) > *dajiji- > *dajji- by contraction (Van Coetsem 1949: 57,
w. lit; Jasanoff 1978: 85; Rasmussen 1990: 436; EDPG 87) or by inverse Sievers’ Law
(*-ija- > -ja-) (Neri 2016: 18), which is not of PIE date; cf. *néwio- ‘new’ (see niujis in
App. and LHE2 19, 145f., w. lit).
Reconstruction of a root *bhleuhx- for *bleww-an (Goth. bliggwan) ‘strike’ is ques-
tionable (cf. LIV 90); *mléu-e- is also possible (EDPG 69). For Kuryłowicz (1968:
330f.), the crucial fact is the alternation between *blew-an and pret sg *blau, pret pl
*blu(w)-um, hence the reanalysis of *blew-an as *bleuw-an and its eventual gemin-
ation to *bleww-an. On Petersen’s phonetic account, all that is needed is */bleu.an/ >
*/bliu.wan/ (glide insertion) > */bli .wan/ (constriction) > bliggwan (gemination).
35 Dybo’s Law (Dybo 1961: 24ff.) involves what is loosely referred to as pretonic shortening of a long
vowel before a nonsyllabic resonant in Italic, Celtic, and Germanic, e.g. Goth. sunus, ON sonr, sunr ‘son’ =
Ved. sunú- ‘id.’ < PIE *suH-nú- (see sunus in App.). Since PIE long vowels do not shorten in this environment
(pace Kroonen 2013: xx–xxi, whose version is based on his reconstruction of ‘egg’), a better formulation is
loss of the laryngeal (details in Neri 2011: 191–3; cf. Neri 2005: 231f., both w. lit).
2.14 Verschärfung 57
Everyone offers a different account of the goddess ON Frigg, OHG Frija; cf. Skt.
priyá- ‘dear’ (< priH-ó- LIV 490 or *pri-yó- LIPP 2.642) and the deadjectival Goth.
frijon ‘love’. The simplest account of Frigg is as a typical feminine *-jō- derivative
(KM 71) of the Germanic verb *fri(j)ōn (EDPG 155), i.e. *Frij-jō- (hypocoristic or
haplological for *frijō-jō-) > Frigg.
Goth. iddja ‘went’ (132 iddj- forms occur: Snædal 2011b: 148) is obscure. Many
accounts have been offered (see VEW 174–6, GG 173, LHE2 219, 295). One derives it
from an IE perfect 3pl *h1e-h1i-nt > *iy(y)un [*h1ei- ‘go’] (cf. LIV 233). Rasmussen
(1990: 432, w. lit) derives it from the root *yeh2- ‘travel’ (LIV 309) of Skt. yā-ti ‘goes’,
whose Pre-Germanic perfect would have been 3sg *yi/e-yóh2-e, 3pl *yé-yh2-nt >
*i/ejō, *yeyi-un > *eō, *ijjun. With normalization to the weak preterite the form *eō
yielded OE ēo-de, ēo-don ‘went’ (pace Kortlandt 1991: 98), while *ijj- gave Goth. iddja,
iddjedun ‘id.’.36 Petersen (2002: 21) proposes a straightforward derivation from *ijj-
(< *jejj-).
Finally, the split between Goth. sniwan* ‘come upon; hasten’ (§5.8) from *snew-an
and *snewwan (OE snēowan) ‘make haste, hurry’ (cf. ON snoggr ‘quick’) is difficult to
explain. Kuryłowicz (1967: 448; 1968: 331) accounts for the split by means of the
absence in Gothic of zero grade forms *snuwum, *snuwans (assuming str 4) to trigger
gemination. Rasmussen (1990: 430) invokes a paradigm split: the lack of gemination
in Gothic is taken from an anteconsonantal form *snew - while the geminated
alternant is taken from antevocalic *sneuH- (cf. LIV 575). The laryngeal in this root is
corroborated by Serbo-Croatian. Jasanoff (1978: 85) reconstructs an original para-
digm *snewwan, *snau, *snæwum, *snuwanaz (< *sneuh1-e/o-, *snouh1-h2e/-e, *snuh1-
ono-). Old English selected the Germanic thematic present, Gothic rebuilt the present
from the preterite (Harðarson 2001: 31f.; cf. Neri 2016: 19).
To conclude this section, Verschärfung is not a unified process. Germanic had
geminates of several sources. The ambisyllabicity of the geminate glide, from whatever
source, followed by phonetic constriction, was most likely responsible for Verschärfung
(Suzuki 1991; Petersen 2002).
36 Schumacher (1998) derives OE ēode from a pret *æj- (analogical to *æt ‘ate’) plus endings of wk2.
While the details differ greatly from one account to another, several are based on a pre-OE *eō or *ēo
plus the endings of wk 2 or 3 (cf. Hogg & Fulk 2011: 319f.). See also Eichner (2005). Another account is
*h1i-t-eh2-ye- to Lat. itāre ‘go here and there’ (EDPG xxxix).
CH APTER 3
3.1 Introduction
Nouns head noun phrases (NPs), which occur in numerous configurations (Werth 1965:
97–133). Nouns are inflected for gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), number (sin-
gular and plural), and case: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative. Except in -u- stems,
the vocative has the form of the accusative and/or is syncretized with the nominative.
Demonstratives and pronominals have a residual instrumental, e.g. þe ‘by this’, biþe
‘while’, and ablative, e.g. jáinþro ‘from there’. Adjectives are similarly inflected but also
have strong and weak forms. Comparatives and nonpast participles are weak. Personal
pronouns of the first and second person are inflected for singular, plural, and dual,
and have no gender distinction. The third person pronoun has all three genders but
only singular and plural number. Numerals are partly inflected and partly indeclinable.
sg
nom dags waúrd haírdeis harjis kuni kniu* giba mawi
voc dag* haírdi* hari* mawi
acc dag waúrd haírdi* hari* kuni kniu* giba máuja
gen dagis waúrdis haírdeis harjis kunjis kniwis* gibos máujos
dat daga waúrda haírdja* harja* kunja kniwa* gibái máujái
pl
n/voc dagos waúrda haírdjos harjos* kunja kniwa* gibos máujos*
acc dagans waúrda haírdjans harjans* kunja* kniwa gibos máujos
gen dage waúrde haírdje* harje* kunje* kniwe gibo* máujo*
dat dagam waúrdam haírdjam harjam* kunjam* kniwam gibom* máujom*
(continued)
-i-stem -u-stem -n- stem -nd-stem -r-stem -C-stem mixed
sg
nom gasts sunus guma qino nasjands broþar baúrgs manna
voc gast* sunáu nasjand* broþar
acc gast sunu guman* qinon nasjand broþar baúrg mannan
gen gastis* sunáus gumins* qinons nasjandis broþrs baúrgs mans
dat gasta* sunáu gumin qinon nasjand broþr baúrg mann
pl
n/voc gasteis sunjus gumans* qinons nasjands* broþrjus baúrgs* ma(nna)ns
acc gastins sununs gumans* qinons nasjand* broþruns baúrgs ma(nna)ns
gen gaste* suniwe gumane qinono nasjande* broþre baúrge manne
dat gastim sunum gumam* qinom nasjandam* broþrum baúrgim mannam
3.2 Noun inflection 61
The paradigm of sunus ‘son’, like all -u- stems, has some leveling of -u- / -áu- in the
singular (cf. Börner 1859: 11; Van Helten 1903: 78f.; Jacobsohn 1915: 85ff., w. lit): nom
sunus (freq) ~ sunáus (Lk 4:3), acc sunu (25x), gen sunáus (freq) ~ sunus (Lk 17:22
sunūs, Gal 2:20A, Eph 4:13A, Col 1:13A), dat sunáu (10x, 1 dupl) ~ sunu (Lk 9:38), voc
sunáu (Mt 9:27, Mk 5:7, 10:47, 48, Lk 8:28, 29, 18:39) ~ sunu (Lk 18:38).1 The inherited
endings have only minor variation, and filu (78x, 6 dupl) ‘much’ is never spelled *filau.
Table 3.1 contains a synopsis of nouns representing the main classes. Unattested
forms, indicated by an asterisk * after the form, are supplied from many other nouns.
Magus ‘boy, son’ attests a vocative magau at Lk 2:48. Barnilo ‘little child’ is only
vocative (5x) in the singular and the plural barnilona (3x). Mawilo (Mk 5:41) ‘little girl’
is voc, as is halja (f -jō-) ‘hell; death’ (1Cor 15:55A/B). Mawi ‘girl’ is syntactically voc
at Lk 8:54, but Snædal classifies it as nom. Broþar ‘brother’ is syntactically voc at Lk
6:42 and Philem 1:20 (GG 107) but listed as nom. Fadar ‘father’ in its only occurrence
(Gal 4:6A) is labeled voc. It renders Gk. abbã, not patē r which is atta (Sturtevant 1951:
50; Yoon 2005, w. lit). The feminine dauhtar ‘daughter’ (declined like broþar) is voc at
Mt 9:22, Mk 5:34, Lk 8:48, Jn 12:15, all classified as nom by Snædal. See §§3.11, 4.6.
The only attested masculine -i- stem vocative is juggalaud (Lk 7:14) to juggalauþs
‘young man, youth’.
Laisareis (m -arja-) ‘teacher’ attests a vocative laisari (19x), formally identical to the
accusative (3x). Other singular forms are dat laisarja (2x), gen lai|sareis (Sk 7.1.17f.).
Plural: acc laisarjans (2x, 1 dupl), dat laisarjam (Lk 2:46).
For the missing forms of guma, cf. atta ‘father; God’ attested in all cases: sg nom
atta, gen attins, dat attin, acc attan, pl nom/acc attans, gen attane, dat attam. No
vocative is recognized by Snædal, but it is atta, identical to the nominative, and syn-
tactically vocative at Lk 15:12, 18, 21, Jn 11:41, 12:27, 17:5, 11, Mk 6:9, etc.
Similar is aba (m) ‘engaged man; husband’: sg gen abins, dat abin, acc aban, pl
nom abans, gen abne, dat abnam. See Johnsen (2005) for the history of these forms.
Guþ (m -a-) ‘God’: the Christian God is always abbreviated in the manuscripts with þ
from the nom, despite gen gudis, dat guda. Guþ (q.v. in App.) was originally neuter,
hence the identity of nom/acc sg guþ (also voc Mt 27:46 2x, Mk 15:34 2x) and pl:
nom guda (Jn 10:34, Gal 4:8A), acc guda (Jn 10:35).
Nahts (f -C-) ‘night’ attests sg gen nahts, dat naht, acc naht, pl dat nahtam for
*nahtim if analogized like baurgim to -i- stems (GGS 118, NWG 433), always in the
1 Based on Ved. suno, Lith. sūnaũ, Goth. sunau, etc., Watkins (1966) argues that the PIE -u- stem voc
had a full-grade suffix (cf. Paul 1877: 437; Van Helten 1903: 78f.; Jones 1979: 247ff.; LHE2 151; MPIE 2.1).
Leveling in Gothic, not synchronic pragmatic prosody (Rauch 2017: 241), explains why native -u- stems
mostly keep -au (Loewe 1922b; Ebbinghaus 1971), despite the nonoptimal foot structure (§2.12), while
loans attest only the innovated voc-acc: Filippu (Jn 14:9), Iesu (8x), Lazaru (Jn 11:43), Nazorenu (Lk 4:34 ~
[Gk.] Nazorenai §4.6), Teimauþaiu (1Tim 4:18B), Þaiaufeilu (Lk 1:3), Xristu (Mt 26:68C), Zakkaiu (Lk 19:5).
62 The nominal system
phrase nahtam jah dagam (Mk 5:5, Lk 2:37, 1Tim 5:5A/B) ‘night and day’ or dagam jah
nahtam (Lk 18:7) ‘day and night’ (Pipping 1899; Burchardi 1900; GGS 118; GG 110).
Waíhts (f -C-/-i-) (1Cor 10:20A restored line) ‘thing’ has a split consonant and
-i- stem paradigm: sg gen waihts (6x, 1 dupl) ~ waihtais (8x, 1 dupl), dat waihtai, acc
waiht, pl gen waihte (Lk 10:19, 1Thess 5:22B), acc waihts (Sk 2.4.16) ~ waihtins (Lk 1:1);
there is also a nom sg n waiht (10x, 4 dupl) that occurs only with ni and means ‘noth-
ing’ (Streitberg 1905: 401–4; cf. NWG 433).
Mahts (f -i-) ‘strength’ has all forms attested: sg nom mahts, gen mahtais, dat
mahtai, acc maht, pl nom mahteis, gen mahte, dat mahtim, acc mahtins.
Dulþs (Jn 6:4, 7:2) ‘feast’ (f sg only) is mostly an -i- stem: acc dulþ (6x), gen dulþais
(3x), dat dulþai (4x), dulþ (1x): ana midjai dulþ (Jn 7:14) ‘in the middle of the festival’.
Háims* (f) is an -i- stem in the singular meaning ‘village’: dat haimai (Jn 11:1,
Lk 24:13G), acc haim (4x); and an -ō- stem in the plural ‘villages, lands’: gen haimo
(Lk 5:17, 17:12), dat haimom (Mk 1:38, 5:14), acc haimos (5x). See haims* in the Appendix.
For a neuter -ja- stem with alternating paradigm, cf. sg nom/acc taui ‘work,
deed’, gen tojis*, dat toja, pl (nom*/)acc toja, gen toje*, dat tojam (Col 3:9B,
Bl 1v.2, 25).
Aúhsa* (m -n-) ‘ox’ attests sg acc auhsan (1Cor 9:9A), dat auhsin (1Cor 9:9A, 1Tim
5:18A), pl gen auhsne (Lk 14:19), acc auhsnuns (1Cor 9:9A) (Snædal 2013a: ii. 58; cf.
GG 104). For discussion of these forms, see Johnsen (2005), Thöny (2013: 205).
A neuter -n- stem is nom/acc haírto ‘heart’, gen hairtins, dat hairtin, pl nom/acc
hairtona, gen hairtane, dat hairtam.
Another type of neuter -n- stem is namo ‘name’: nom/acc namo, gen namins, dat
namin, pl nom/acc namna, gen namne, dat namnam.
Wato* (n -n-) ‘water’ (Johnsen 2005): sg gen watins (6x), dat watin (5x), acc wato
(5x, 1 dupl), pl dat watnam (Mt 8:32, Lk 8:25); never a subject (Rousseau 2012: 160).
Fon (n) ‘fire’ has only sg nom/acc fon, gen funins, dat funin.
For a neuter -s- stem, cf. riqis (3x) / riqiz (4x) ‘darkness’: gen riqizis, dat riqiza, acc
riqis (Mt 8:12); note also weihs* ‘hamlet, village’: sg acc weihs (Mk 8:26), dat we(i)hsa,
gen weihsis (Mk 8:23), pl acc weihsa.
Faíhu (n -u-) ‘wealth, possessions’ attests only sg acc faíhu (Mk 10:22, 23, 14:11, Lk
18:24), dat faíháu (Mk 10:24). The genitive would presumably be faíháus* (GG 102).
Waurstw (n -a-) ‘work, deed’ occurs in all cases: sg nom/acc waurstw, gen
waurstwis, dat waurstwa, pl nom/acc waurstwa, gen waurstwe, dat waurstwam.
The -wa- stem þius* (m) ‘servant, (household) slave’ attests only pl nom þiwos (Neh
5:16, 1Tim 6:1A/B), gen þiwe (Lk 16:13).
Sunno (-n-) ‘sun’ is mixed feminine/neuter: sg nom sunno (Lk 4:40, Eph 4:26A/B,
Neh 7:3), acc (f) sunnon (Mt 5:45), dat (n) sunnin (Mk 4:6, 16:2). The nominative
alternates with neuter sauil (Mk 1:32, 13:24) (NWG 581).
For a feminine -īn- stem, cf. managei ‘multitude, crowd’: sg gen manageins, dat/
acc managein, pl nom/acc manageins, gen manageino, dat manageim.
Feminine -īni- stems are inflected like the word for ‘teaching, instruction, doctrine’:
sg nom laiseins, gen laiseinais, dat laiseinai, acc laisein, pl nom laiseinos*, gen
3.4 D-words 63
3.4 D-words
A D-word (D, for short) encompasses demonstratives, determiners, and articles.
These differ in their feature content and syntactic position. Demonstratives have one
or more deictic features. Determiners are specifiers of DP (Determiner Phrase) and
articles are D heads. Because relevant syntactic tests cannot be performed, it is unclear
whether any Gothic Ds are actually in head position.2
masc nt fem
sg nom sa þata so
acc þana þata þo
gen þis þis þizos
dat þamma þamma þizai
inst (þe)
pl nom þai þo þos
acc þans þo þos
gen þize(i) þize(i) þizo
dat þaim þaim þaim
2 Most scholars (except Meillet 1949: 191) recognize at least incipient definite articles in Gothic
(e.g. Bernhardt 1874a; 1885: 96ff.; Douse 1886: 227ff.; Wackernagel 1928: 130; Sauvageot 1929; Hodler
1954; Guxman 1958: 106ff.; Vilutis 1976–9; Kovari 1984; Sternemann 1995: 54ff.; Kotin 2012: 23, 211–24;
Rousseau 2012: 161–5). Van de Velde (2009) denies determiners before Old Dutch. This ignores (i) the
link between Ds and the weak adjective in early Germanic (Heinrichs 1954: 80–5; Stempel 2004), (ii) the
fact that the article occurs in 842 in the Strasbourg Oaths (Stempel 2004: 564), and (iii) the many syntac-
tic and semantic features that demonstratives, determiners, and articles can have (see Van Gelderen
2011: ch. 6).
For attempts at the history of sa, þata, so, see LIPP 2.732–45, 779–99; LHE2 68f.; MPIE 2.2.2.
64 The nominal system
The main Gothic D is sa, þata, so, ‘this, that; the; he, she, it’ (neutral deixis; Table 3.2).
All of the forms are attested (Snædal 2009a: 159). Instrumental þe occurs in biþe
‘while’, duþe ‘for this (reason)’, etc., and as a free form only in ni þe haldis (Sk 4.4.4)
‘by no means’, in which haldis is generally considered a comparative adverb (cf.
Bezzenberger 1873: 121; GED 174), but Ramat (1981: 145) makes it a verb (lit. ‘nicht mit
diesem hältst du’).
Ds agree with their noun in gender, number, and case, but þata can be used as a
generic ‘this’, e.g. niu þata ist sa timrja (Mk 6:3) ‘is this not the carpenter?’. Contextually
sa can be equally grammatical, as in gudis sunus ist sa (Mt 27:54) ‘this is God’s son’.
Sa does not translate Greek articles. In (1), sunus ‘son’, mans ‘(of) man’, haubiþ ‘head’
have no D-word in contrast to the Greek text.
(1) iþ sunus mans ni habaiþ ƕar haubiþ ga-lagjai (Lk 9:58)
but son man.gen neg has where head prfx-lay.3sg.opt
‘but the son of man does not have anywhere he may lay his head down’
[Gk. ho dè huiòs toũ anthrṓpou ouk ékhei poũ tē n kephalē n klı ń ē(i)
the but son of.the man not has where the head lean.3sg.sbj]
With the complementizer -ei, final short vowels generally apocopate synchronically:
þat-ei ‘(this) that’, acc þan-ei ‘him that, whom’, dat þamm-ei, etc. Note also sei ‘(she)
who’ < si + ei (§9.34). The major exception is nom sg m saei ‘he that, who’.
A stronger demonstrative occurs with -uh. It usually translates forms of Gk.
hoũtos ‘this’ or autós ‘the same; he’, and never renders a Greek article. Attested forms
are (cf. GG 135) masc sg nom sah, acc þanuh, gen þizuh (Mt 27:57, Lk 9:26), dat
þammuh (3x), pl nom þaih (2x ~ þaiþ 2x), acc þanzuh (Sk 1.3.22), dat þaimuh
(2Thess 3:12A/B); neut sg nom/acc þatuh, gen þizuh (2Cor 13:9A/B), dat
þam|muh (Sk 2.2.5f.), pl acc þoh (Sk 8.3.9); fem sg nom soh, pl dat þaimuh (1Tim
6:8A/B).
Sah functions as a proximal demonstrative, e.g. sah hliftus ist (Jn 10:1) ‘this (man) is
a thief ’, soh þan ist so aiweino libains (Jn 17:3) ‘now this is the (above-mentioned)
eternal life’, þatuh Abraham ni tawida (Jn 8:40) ‘this Abraham did not do’, saei allis
skamaiþ sik meina . . . þizuh sunus mans skamaid sik (Lk 9:26) ‘for whoever is ashamed
of me . . . of him will the son of man be ashamed’.
Proximal hi- (*k(e)i- LIPP 2.406ff.) occurs in a few calcified phrases (singular
only) masc acc und hina dag (Mt 11:23, 27:8, 2Cor 3:14, 15A/B) ‘until this (very)
day’, dat himma daga (Mt 6:11+ [7x]) ‘on this day, today’; nt acc und hita (Mt
11:12+ [5x]) ‘until now’, dat fram himma (Jn 13:19, 14:7, Lk 1:48, 5:10) ‘from now on,
henceforth’.
The distal demonstrative is jains (see App.), jaina, jainata (acc) ‘that, yon’, declined
like a strong adjective. All masculine forms are attested. The feminine and neuter
occur only in the singular, less the feminine genitive and the neuter nominative. The
neuter accusative is found only at Lk 15:14. The short nom/acc sg n *jain does not
occur. Examples include in jainamma daga (7x) ‘on that (remote) day’, þaiei wairþai
sind jainis aiwis niutan (Lk 20:35) ‘they who are worthy to gain the benefit of that
(distant) world’.
3.5 Syntax of sa, þata, so 65
The main functions of sa, þata, so have been described by Bernhardt (1874a), Hodler
(1954), and Vilutis (1972, 1982; cf. Rousseau 2012: 162–9): (a) deixis, pointing to a
proximous or deictically neutral object; (b) prolepsis (cataphora), linked to a follow-
ing phrase or clause; (c) correlative, consisting of D and a relative or interrogative
word or phrase; (d) anaphora, functionally close to a 3rd person pronoun; (e) descrip-
tive reference to a person in a concretizing function; (f) substitutive for a noun, close
to a personal pronoun; (g) pleonastic, for emphasis; (h) demonstrative-relative; and
(i) relative, in attributive clauses and phrases headed by a participle.
Words that are automatically determined do not take D (unless a feature in the
paragraphs below is present). These are airþa ‘earth’ (but in the sense of ‘soil’ note ana
þizai godon airþai (Lk 8:15) ‘on this good soil’), atta ‘Father’, frauja ‘Lord’, guþ ‘God’,
halja ‘hell’, himins ‘heaven’, mena (1x) ‘moon’, sauil (2x) ‘sun’, sunno ‘sun’. Dags ‘day’ and
nahts ‘night’ take a D only when the feature ‘particular’ is present (Bernhardt 1874a: 3;
Balg 1891: 261f.; Behaghel 1923: 59).
A clarifying/identifying feature explains the D in appositional epithets like Iohannes
sa daupjands (3x) ‘John the Baptist’, acc Iohannen þana daupjand (2x); Herodes sa
taitrarkes (Lk 3:19) / Herodis sa taitarkes (Lk 9:7) ‘Herod the tetrarch’; ïesus sa magus
(Lk 2:43) ‘the boy Jesus’ (GrGS 178), etc. Þiudans ‘king’, as a temporary state, normally
takes no D: þiudans Herodes (Mk 6:14) ‘King Herod’, gen Herodes þiudanis (Lk 1:5).
D with proper nouns and temporary-state titles in Greek is normal but deictic in
Gothic (Bernhardt 1874a: 2f.), e.g. sa Xristus, sa þiudans Israelis, atsteigadau nu . . . (Mk
15:32) ‘let this Messiah, this king of Israel, now climb down (from the cross)’. The
norm is no D, e.g. in landa Akaje (2Cor 11:10B) ‘in the land of the Achaeans’.
Old information accounts for one of the main uses of Gothic Ds (Bernhardt 1874a:
5f.; Douse 1886: 227f.; Behaghel 1923: 39; Kotin 2012: 213–16), e.g. augei unsis þana attan
(Jn 14:9) ‘show us the Father’ [whom you have seen], ahma ina ustauh in auþida. | jah
was in þizai auþidai dage fidwor tiguns (Mk 1:12f.) ‘the spirit led him out into the
desert, and he was in the/that desert forty days’, ufar | þans fimf hlaibans | jah twans
fiskans (Sk 7.2.15ff.) ‘over those five loaves and two fish’, referring to .e. hlaibans
bari|zeinans: jah | twans fiskans ‘(the) five barley loaves and two fish’ mentioned in
Sk 7.1.10ff. (Lenk 1910: 244), quoting Jn 6:13 with no fish in the Greek, Latin, or Gothic
texts (Del Pezzo 1973a: 13; Falluomini 2016a: 283, both w. lit).
‘Well known’ is a semantic feature of the Gothic D (GrGS 166; Bernhardt 1874a: 7f.).
While bokareis ‘scribe’ normally occurs alone, the plural bokarjos has a D in the con-
text of þai Fareisaieis jah þai bokarjos (Mk 7:5) ‘the Pharisees and the scribes’, unless
the D undergoes gapping, e.g. þai sinistans jah bokarjos (Mk 14:53) ‘the elders and
scribes’, þai gudjans jah bokarjos (Lk 20:1) ‘the high priests and scribes’; cf. also þai
bokarjos jah Fareisaieis (Lk 5:21, 6:7) ‘the scribes and Pharisees’. Gapping is blocked
when the coordinated nouns differ in gender, e.g. is ist sa manleika jah so ufarmel-
eins (Mk 12:16) ‘whose is this image and this inscription (on the coin)?’ (GrGS 168f.).
A D-word is obligatory when an adverb or PP precedes the noun (Bernhardt 1874a:
12–15; Douse 1886: 223), e.g. þai bi þata anþar lustjus (Mk 4:19) ‘desires regarding the
66 The nominal system
other (things)’, so nu faheþs mei|na (Sk 4.1.1f.) ‘now this joy of mine’, so bi ina ga|rehsns
(Sk 4.1.24f.) ‘the plan involving him’, frijonds þo nu ald (2Tim 4:10A/B) ‘loving the
present world’, und þo nu eila (1Cor 4:11A) ‘up to this present hour’, þizai nu
Iairusalem (Gal 4:25B) ‘to Jerusalem as it is now’, þo us sis maht (Mk 5:30) ‘the power
(that had gone) out of him’. An extreme example that mirrors the Greek linearization
(Schaubach 1879: 5f.) appears in (2).
(2) ei gakunnais þize bi þo-ei galaisiþs
that know.2sg.opt D.gen.pl.n about acc.pl.n-rel teach.PPP.nom.sg.m
is waurde astaþ (Lk 1:4)
be.2sg word.gen.pl.n soundness.acc.sg
‘that you may know the certainty of the words about which you were taught’
Strong forms outnumber weak nearly four to one. Of the 2056 adjectives and quanti-
fiers in the main corpus of Gothic, 1587 are strong and only 469 weak (Ratkus 2011: 136).3
The difference is due to the very specific syntactic contexts required by the weak forms.
The Gothic corpus contains 2912 examples of adjectival inflection, which Ratkus
reduces to 2178 because 738 are quantifiers and other words that take only strong
inflection. These include possessive adjectives, cardinal numbers (e.g. ains ‘one’), alls
‘all’, anþar ‘other, second’, halbs* ‘half ’, faus* ‘few’, fulls ‘full’, ganohs* ‘enough’, arjis
‘who, which?’, aþar ‘which (of two)?’, jains ‘that (yon)’ (distal), midjis* ‘mid(dle)’,
swaleiks ‘such’, sums ‘some, a certain’, and some semantically split examples (below).
Table 3.3 contains the strong and weak paradigms of -a- stem ‘blind’, reconstructed
from many adjectives.4
Most Gothic adjectives are inflected like blinds, but a few other stem-types are found.
The main difference in -ja- stem adjectives is in the nom sg m, e.g. niujis (wk niuja)
‘new’. Otherwise the paradigms are identical: gen niujis, dat niujamma (wk niujin);
nom sg f niuja (wk niujo), gen niujaizos, acc niuja, etc. Heavy-base wilþeis ‘wild’
(Rom 11:17A) has gen wilþjis (Rom 11:24A), acc sg n wilþi (Mk 1:6). Alþeis ‘old’ (Sk
2.2.12, 2.3.2) attests nom pl n wk alþjona (2Cor 5:17A/B), gen pl f wk alþjono (Cal
2.19), and cmpv nom sg m alþiza (Lk 15:25).
Gothic has no pure -i- stem adjectives (Beade 1971: 122f.; Matzel 1992; Snædal
2002c):
gamains ‘common’ (Rom 11:17A, Sk 1.1.8f.): nom sg n gamain (Rom 14:14C), acc sg f
gamainja (Phil 4:14B), dat gamainjai (Tit 4:14B), dat pl f gamainjaim (Mk 7:2).
hrains (5x) ‘clean’: strong nom pl m hrainjai (3x), dat hrainjaim (Tit 1:15A), nom sg n
hrain (3x), acc hrain (Sk 3.3.7), dat hrainjamma (Mt 27:59, 1Tim 1:5A/B, 2Tim
2:22A/B), and dat sg f hrainjai (1Tim 2:9A/B, 3:9A, 2Tim 1:3A).
wulþrs* (q.v. in App.) ‘valuable, important’: gen sg n wulþrais (Gal 2:6A).
The -u- stem adjectives replace u with j before a vowel, like the -ja- and -i- stems, by
the change *uj > *ij (Hill 2012: 12f.; LHE2 228); cf. nom pl m tulgjai (1Cor 15:58A/B) to
tulgus (2Tim 2:19B) ‘firm’, and acc sg f þaursja (Lk 6:8), acc sg m þaursjana (Mk
11:20) to þaursus ‘dry; withered’ (nom sg f Lk 6:6).
hardus ‘hard’ (Lk 19:21, 22): nom sg n hardu (Jn 6:60), cmpv nom sg n hardizo
‘harder’ (Sk 6.3.24).
manwus ‘ready’ (2Cor 12:14A/B): acc sg m manwjana (2Cor 9:5A/B), nom sg n
manwu (Lk 14:17, Jn 7:6), acc manwjata (Mk 14:15), dat pl n manwjaim (2Cor 10:16B).
Unattested are gen sg f *-jaizos, dat sg f *-jai, gen sg m *-jis (or -aus?), dat sg
m/n *-jamma, and nom pl n *-ja (cf. GG 121).
Filu ‘much’ occurs only as an indeclinable neuter, generally adverbially, but note the
genitive filaus ‘(by) much’, always with a comparative: filaus mais ‘much more’ (2Cor
7:13A/B, 8:22B, Sk 5.3.6f.), mi(n)|nizei filaus ‘much less’ (Sk 3.4.7f.), filaus mai|zo
‘much more’ (Sk 7.3.1f.) (Schwahn 1873: 5f.). Indeclinable filu shares this use, as in (3).
(3) broþar liubana, ussindo mis, iþ ƕan filu mais þus (Philem 16)
‘a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you’
The -wa- stem qiwa- ‘living, alive’ has masculine singular nom qius (Rom 7:9A),
acc qiwana (Rom 12:1C), plural nom qiwai (Col 2:20A/B), gen qiwaize (Mk 12:27, Lk
20:38), dat qiwaim (Rom 14:9C), acc qiwans (2Tim 4:1A/B). Apart from a superlative
(§3.12), lasiwa- ‘weak’ attests only nom sg m lasiws (2Cor 10:10B).
The extended neuters in -ata, such as allata (38x) ‘all’, juggata (4x) ‘young’, þeinata (8x)
‘your’, are modeled on þata ‘that’. Of the 76 -ata forms, 36 are attributive, like kelikn
mikilata (Mk 14:15) ‘large upper room’, and 36 substantivized. Only weihata ‘holy’
(Rom 7:12) is unequivocally predicative, but 3 more are likely (Ratkus 2011: 111–15, 2015).
3.7 Bare and -ata neuters 69
Ratkus (2015) refutes the prescription (since Grimm!) that -ata is only attributive. Of
alleged short-form ambiguities, such as warþ wis mikil (Mt 8:26) ‘there was a great calm’
or ‘the calm became great’ (Lamberterie 2004: 309), the context requires the former.
The bare stem and -ata neuters are distributed as in Table 3.4 (Ratkus 2015).
Table 3.4 Bare and -ata neuters
-ata 9 12 18 18 19 —
% 15% 14% 15% 17% 7%
- 51 74 103 87 239 12
% 85% 86% 85% 83% 93%
Scribe 1 (21 -ata) and the Epistles (19 -ata) pattern together, against scribe 2 (36 -ata).
For scribes see §1.5. In the Epistles most -ata occur in Corinthians (7 in 1Cor, 4 in 2Cor).
The percentage of -ata vis-à-vis short neuters is low. The raw numbers in scribes 1 and
2 differ, but the percentage is the same with respect to the bare formations.
Since -ata was the newer form, gaining in productivity, there is nothing surprising
about competition between it and the plain neuter, as in þata badi þeinata (Lk 5:24) ~
þein (Mk 2:11) ‘your bed’ (Ratkus 2015), or (4) (cf. Meyer 1863: 3).
(4) allata þulaiþ, allata galaubeiþ, all weneiþ, all gabeidiþ (1Cor 13:7A)
all bears all believes all hopes all endures
‘bears all, believes all, hopes for all, endures all’
The contrast between wein þata niujo and wein niujata / juggata ‘new/young wine’
in (5) and (6) has attracted much attention (cf. Griepentrog 1990: 29).
(5) ni manna giutiþ wein juggata in balgins fairnjans, ibai aufto
neg man pours wine young in bottles worn.out lest indeed
dis-tairai wein þata niujo þans balgins, jah wein
apart-tear.3sg.opt wine d new d bottles and wine
us-gutniþ, jah þai balgeis fraqistnand, ak wein juggata in balgins
out-pours and d bottles perish.3pl but wine young in bottles
niujans giutand5 (Mk 2:22)
new pour.3pl
‘no man pours young wine in old bottles lest the new wine tear apart
those bottles, and the wine pours out, and the bottles become destroyed,
but one pours young wine in new bottles’
5 Giutand ‘they pour’ renders Gk. blētéon ‘to be poured; one must pour’, the only verbal adjective
in -téos underlying the attested Gothic corpus (Gering 1874: 303). Most Latin versions have mittunt ‘they
70 The nominal system
Wein niujata / juggata [−D] signals new information and wein þata niujo / þata
niujo wein [+D] old information (§3.5; Trutmann 1972: 106, 139; Lamberterie 2004:
309f.).6
The Luke passage continues: jah ainshun drigkandane* <drig||gandane> fairni, ni
suns wili jugg (Lk 5:39) ‘and anyone of those drinking the old (wine) does not imme-
diately desire the new’. Fairni and jugg are not predicative (pace Lamberterie 2004:
310), but conventional use, generic (cf. §3.11), and not in the authoritative, expressive
tone Jesus used (Mk 2:22, Lk 5:37f.) to exhort the scribes and Pharisees to abandon
obsolete customs and embrace the new way (Ratkus 2015).
Ratkus (2015) also demonstrates that -ata can be associated with a reverential or
solemn tone, as in addressing God, e.g. þeinata namo, waurd þeinata (Jn 17:6) ‘thy
name, thy word’, þeinata sunja (Jn 17:17) ‘thy truth’, etc., beside namo þein (Mk 5:9,
Lk 8:30) ‘your name’ (addressed to demons), waurd mein (Jn 8:37, 43, 51, 14:23) ~ mein
waurd (Jn 8:52, 15:20) ‘my word’.
Some collocations seem prosodically conditioned, e.g. all þata (4x) ‘all this/that’, all
þatei (7x ~ allata þatei 1x) ‘all that (which)’, but þata allata (2x) ‘all this’. One syntactic
difference is that allata (38x, 4 dupl) never occurs with a partitive genitive while all
(82x, 14 dupl) occurs 28x (7 dupl) in that function (cf. §4.26).7 The reason for this
is unclear.
cast’ (Marold 1882: 38), like Gk. bállousin ‘id.’ in the parallel Mt 9:17, rendered 2x by giutand (Odefey
1908: 57).
6 Cf. niþ-þan giutand wein niujata in balgins fairnjans, aiþþau distaurnand balgeis; biþeh þan jah wein
usgutniþ jah balgeis fraqistnand (Mt 9:17) ‘and they do not pour new wine into old bottles; in that case
bottles (Gk. hoi askoí ‘the bottles’ or ‘bottles in general’) burst and after that then wine (Gk. ho oĩnos ‘the
wine’ or ‘wine in general’) pours out . . .’. While balgeis and wein appear to be old information, absence of
a D-word suggests genericity. Technically, the bottles and wine need not be identical to those previously
mentioned. In the parallel Mark and Luke passages, then, the D-word in Gothic suggests that the
translator(s) took the Greek article in the definite sense.
7 There is one apparent example of allata with a partitive genitive (cf. Schrader 1874: 28) in (i).
(i) allata afletada þata frawaurhte sunum manne (Mk 3:28)
all.nom.sg.n forgive.3sg.pass D.nom.sg.n sin.gen.pl son.dat.pl man.gen.pl
3.8 Uses of weak and strong adjectives 71
Strong adjectives are descriptive or predicative. Weak can occur with an overt or
null D-word or remain entirely undetermined. The undetermined ones perform a
classifying or identifying function. Determined, they convey a definite description
or reference.
Probably for semantic reasons (Ratkus 2018b), exclusively weak-inflected are all
ordinal numbers except anþar ‘other, second’, comparative adjectives, elative -man-,
such as auhuma* ‘higher, above’ (Phil 2:3B acc sg m auhuman), aftuma* ‘last’ (Mk
10:31 nom pl m aftumans 2x), innuma ‘inner (being)’, etc. (Szemerényi 1960b, LHE2
318), the PrP (except for nom sg m -s), sama (pronominal adj 46x) mostly an adnom-
inal modifier (with D) ‘the same’, (without D) ‘one (of a kind); one (and the same)’
(Ratkus 2018c; see sama in App.), silba ‘self ’ (prn/N §9.4), ainaha ‘only (begotten)’
(possibly a noun §8.28), taihswa* ‘right’ (unless in taihswai Mk 16:5, Col 3:1A/B ‘on the
right’ is a strong adj), fairns* ‘previous’ (fram fairnin jera 2Cor 9:2A/B ‘since last year’,
af fairnin jera 2Cor 8:10A/B ‘a year ago’).
Aiweins* ‘eternal’ is weak with libains ‘life’ (20x, 2 dupl), fralusts ‘destruction’
(fralust aiweinon 2Thess 1:9A), and balweins* ‘punishment’ (balwein aiweinon Mt
25:46C) (Bernhardt 1885: 93, w. lit). These identificational uses have Lithuanian par-
allels and differ from the descriptive strong forms (Ratkus 2018b), e.g. feminine
singular acc gaþlaiht aiweina (2Thess 2:16B) ‘eternal comfort’ and gen aiweinaizos
frawaurhtais (Mk 3:29) ‘of eternal sin’. The neuter plural and masculine have only
strong forms.
Ibns* ‘equal’ is weak (Lk 20:36, Sk 1.1.13, 5.4.12) but strong as ‘level’: ana stada
ibnamma (Lk 6:17) ‘on a level place’ (GrGS 173; Trutmann 1972: 53; Ratkus 2011:
159).
Deictic words like jains ‘that’ (distal) have only strong forms, as illustrated in (7),
where presence of a D-word would normally license weak inflection.
(7) a) bi þamma razna jainamma (Mt 7:25)
against D.dat.sg.n house.dat.sg.n that/yon.dat.sg.n
‘against that house’
b) þairh þana wig jainana (Mt 8:28)
through d.acc.sg.m road.acc.sg.m that/yon.acc.sg.m
‘by that road’
Some quantifiers can take weak inflection, e.g. manags* ‘many’, leitils ‘little’ (discus-
sion in Ratkus 2011: 92). Of the 2056 words with adjectival inflection in the Gothic
Bible (excluding Skeireins), 1838 are true adjectives and 218 quantifiers (ibid. 92f.).
Among the quantifiers, strong forms prevail by 90%: there are 196 strong forms and
only 22 weak (ibid. 144).
In predicate adjuncts, such as (9a, b), strong forms also prevail. Although Berard
(1993a) allows for ‘attraction’ in the phonological component with no semantic conse-
quences, this accounts only for haltamma in (9a), not for anahaimjaim in (9b).
(9) a) goþ þus ist galeiþan in libain haltamma (Mk 9:45)
good you.dat.sg(.m) is enter.inf in life.acc.sg lame.dat.sg.m
‘it is good for you to enter life lame’
b) waljam mais us-leiþan . . . jah anahaimjaim wisan
choose.1pl more out-go.inf and at.home:dat.pl.m be.inf
‘we choose rather to go out (of the body) and (we choose) (2Cor 5:8A/B)
[for ourselves, scil. unsis] to be at home (with the Lord)’
3.10 Attributive adjectives and D-words 73
In the Greek version of (9a) khōlón ‘lame’ is accusative, despite dative soì ‘to you’
(v.l. acc se, not in the Byzantine main text). Similarly, in the Vetus Latina manu-
scripts (VL 1970: 86), ‘lame’ is accusative despite dative tibi ‘to you’. In Gothic,
haltamma and þus agree in case. The position of þus suggests a matrix dative. In
(9b), up to the conjunction, the Gothic translation matches the Greek, but instead
of a verb equivalent to Gk. endēmẽsai ‘live in’ (parallel to ekdēmẽsai [live out] ‘be
abroad, travel’) Gothic selected an idiom anahaim- wisan (more like Lat. praesentēs
esse ‘be present’) and the construction with an understood dative that is common
in other early Germanic languages (Sturtevant 1922: 442–9). Both can be accounted
for by a null dative subject of the infinitive indexed with the expressed or null
matrix dative.
Gothic attests 116 examples of secondary predicates (Ratkus 2011: 120). Of the total
724 predicative forms, 699 are strong, as in the depictive in (10a), and only 25 weak
(corrected to 24 by Artūras Ratkus, p.c.), e.g. (10b) (Ratkus 2011: 143, 136f.) which,
however, is not depictive or resultative (for haitan, see §§4.53, 4.55.3).
(10) a) jah dauþans us-standand unriurjai (1Cor 15:52A/B)
and dead.nom.pl.m.wk out-stand.3pl incorruptible.nom.pl.m
‘and the dead shall be raised incorruptible’
b) at fairgunja þat-ei haitada
at mountain.dat.sg.n nom.sg.n-rel call.3sg.pass
alewjo (Lk 19:29)
olive.adj.nom.sg.n
‘at the mountain which is called (that) of olives’
Alewja- ‘of olives’ is weak, given its use as a “proper term of reference” (Ratkus 2011:
138) in an identificational function which triggers weak inflection (Ratkus 2018b).
Of the 1838 adjectives (excluding quantifiers), Ratkus (2011: 117ff.) listed 701 as pre-
dicative and 608 as attributive, with 25 predicative weak adjectives. Subsequently he
has revised these figures to 700, 609, and 24 respectively (p.c.).
Example (11c) is typical in that only strong inflection occurs with possessive adjectives
(Behaghel 1923: 190; Harbert 2007: 132). The exception in (11d) is because walisa* is
formally a comparative (§8.20) and therefore has only weak forms (§3.12).
Of the 49 attributive adjectives in Skeireins, 17 are weak and normally occur with a
D-word, but four occur alone (Ratkus 2011: 160ff.), one of which is (12).
(12) judaiwiskom | ufarranneinim jah | sinteinom daupei|nim (Sk 3.2.9–12)
Jewish sprinkling and daily ablution
All of the nominal forms in (12) are dative plural feminine, and the adjectives are
weak.8 No D-word is present, possibly for semantic reasons (Ratkus 2011: 163): ‘Jewish’
is a particular kind, ‘daily’ is permanent or fixed. These occur in a classifying function
(Ratkus 2018b). By contrast, sinteins* at Mt 6:11 occurs in the weak form in the phrase
þana sinteinan ‘this/the daily’ (§8.4) to specify it as definite.
One of the attributive functions of weak adjectives in Gothic was via an appositional
type of structure with a D-word (Harbert 2007: 130ff.). See (13).
(13) a) sunus meins sa liuba (Mk 1:11, 9:7, Lk 3:22, 9:35)
son mine D.nom.sg.m beloved.nom.sg.m.wk
‘my beloved son’
[Byz. ho agapētós ‘the beloved’ ≠ Alex. ho eklelegménos ‘the chosen’]
b) Ik im hairdeis gods. Hairdeis sa goda saiwala
I am shepherd good shepherd the good soul
seina lagjiþ (Jn 10:11)
poss.refl lay.3sg
‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his soul’
8 In sinteinom (Sk 3.2.11), m was inserted as a manuscript correction (Bennett 1960: 34, 90).
3.11 Vocatives, headless NPs, and conversion 75
Vocatives are D-less because they are automatically determined (Orr 1982/83: 115),
which means the definite D head is null (Ratkus 2011: 141). In traditional terms (e.g.
Lichtenheld 1875: 39; Wrede 1920: 392), vocatives are ‘individualized’, as shown by the
weak adjective, which is identificational (see below).
When strong adjectives are used in direct address, they can be predicative, as in þu
ahma, þu unrodjands jah bauþs (Mk 9:25) ‘you spirit, you (who are) unspeaking and
deaf ’ (Curme 1911: 369f.).
In (16a, b) a strong adjective alternates with a weak one.
76 The nominal system
The plural of siuk ‘sick’ in (17a) represents a generic and therefore should have
no abstract definite D to trigger weak inflection. However, prepositional phrases
in Gothic seldom admit D-words (§11.8). (17b) also looks like a generic and translates Gk.
hoi nekroí ‘the dead’, but is not in a PP and could take a D-word but is classifying.
3.12 Comparison of adjectives 77
Analogy may account for the supposed weak form in (17b): weak acc pl -ans :
strong acc pl -ans = weak nom pl -ans : x (→ strong nom pl -ans).9 Alternatively, the
difference may be due to the ambiguity of conversion vs. headless NPs.
Adjectives with a weak form and overt D-word in Skeireins may be determined,
e.g. þai hrain|jahairtans (6.4.21f.) ‘those (who are) clean of heart’, þi|ze anawairþane
(5.1.15f.) ‘of those future (people)’. Most of the occurrences of anawairþs* (including
neuter þize anawairþane at Col 2:17B) are weak with an overt D-word (Ratkus, p. 160).
Both the PP condition of no D-word and the condition of a weak adjective after a
D-word are violated in (18), which suggests that þata is a strong demonstrative, unless
ubil is a noun (Patrick Stiles, p.c.). Þata is anaphoric to ‘evil’ already mentioned.
(18) weitwodei bi þata ubil (Jn 18:23)
witness.2sg.impv about D.acc.sg.n evil.acc.sg.n
‘bear witness regarding that evil’
In NPs without an overt noun a weak adjective can be classifying and particular, as
in berun du imma blindan (Mk 8:22) ‘they brought to him a blind man’, or classifying
and indefinite, e.g. blinda sums (Lk 19:35) ‘a certain blind man’. The strong adjective is
generic and concrete in ibai mag blinds blindana tiuhan (Lk 6:39) ‘the blind can’t lead
the blind, can they?’ (Ratkus 2018b). For additional discussion, see Lichtenheld (1875:
19, 29), Trutmann (1972: 92ff.), Lamberterie (2004: 313), Rousseau (2012: 109).
In sum, weak adjectives can occur with an overt or null D-word. Determined, they
convey a definite description or reference. The undetermined ones perform a classify-
ing or identifying function. Strong adjectives are descriptive, attributive, or predicative.
9 Several factors may be involved. Usfairina (4x) ‘blameless’ and ainaha ‘only (begotten)’ may be lenia
tantum [weak only] (Dvuxžilov 1980: 112, 121). The latter, like ushaista ‘financially impoverished (per-
son)’, may be a noun (so Snædal). Two predicative weak adjectives (PWAs) are bahuvrihis, which tend to
have weak inflection elsewhere in Germanic (Zucha 1989; Hajnal 1997: 46). Eleven of the 24 PWAs (by
Ratkus’ revised count) end in -ans, which may be analogical; note especially unga airbai . . . unairknans
(2Tim 3:2A) ‘disobedient . . . corrupted’. MS B has strong unairknai. For Trutmann (1972: 50), many of these
are substantives, and prefixed forms are treated like compounds. Speculation surrounds unfroþans in swa
unfroþans sijuþ (Gal 3:3A) ‘are you so foolish?’, which Trutmann (p. 66) says is lifted from Gal 3:1A (where
the form is unfrodans). Possibilities include substantivization (Sturtevant 1922: 452–6), analogical -ans,
and the fact that 16 of the 24 PWAs are prefixed with un- or us- (Ratkus 2018b).
10 The IE elative/comparative *-yos-/-is- (IS 355–8, Rau 2014, LHE2 316) may be post-Tocharian (MPIE
2.5). It assimilated in Greek and Germanic to the -n- stems, in Germanic possibly due to the singulative-
type contrast (§8.22; see also Leijström 1950: 20, 39, 91; Trutmann 1972: 10f. et pass.; Orr 1982/83: 115).
78 The nominal system
Table 3.5 contains an overview of comparison (cf. Leyen 1908: 132; GG 125f.), includ-
ing the typically suppletive and nonsuppletive bases (Dieu 2011).
Examples of superlatives
masc sg nom maists (Mk 9:34, Lk 9:46), auhumists (Jn 18:13) ‘highest’ (auhuma*
‘higher; above’: acc auhuman Phil 2:3B), spelled auhmist- at Lk 3:2, 4:29, 19:47; pl
nom armostai (1Cor 15:19A) ‘most miserable’ (the only form attested to *arms ‘pitiable’,
at variance with the Greek and Latin texts: Marold 1883: 80), lasiwostai (1Cor 12:22A)
‘weakest’ (lasiws ‘weak’); neut sg nom maist (Mk 4:32), minnist (Mk 4:31), acc maist
(1Cor 14:27A).
Weak forms: masc sg nom batista (Lk 1:3), minnista (Mt 5:19, Lk 9:48), acc minni-
stan (Mt 5:26), gen maistins (Jn 18:26), hauhistins (6x) ‘highest’ (hauhs* ‘high’), dat
hauhistin (Bl 2r.6), maistin (Jn 18:24), pl nom maistans (Jn 19:6), managistans (1Cor
15:6A), acc managistans (2Cor 9:2A/B, Phil 1:14B), gen minnistane (Mt 10:42, 25:40C),
dat maistam (Mk 6:21); neut sg dat minnistin (1Cor 4:3A); fem pl nom managistons
(Mt 11:20), gen minnistono (Mt 5:19).
Sinist-, supl of sineigs ‘old’, is a pl -n- stem noun (Wagner 1909: 41): þai sinistans
(4x) ‘the elders’, acc sinistans (Lk 7:3), dat sinistam (7x), gen sinistane (Mk 7:3).11
A noun derived from a superlative is hauhisti* (n -ja-) ‘highest’, attested only in the
dat pl in hauhistjam (Mk 11:10, Lk 2:14, 19:38) ‘in the highest’ (GPA 285f., NWG 127).
Comparatives are inflected as in Table 3.6.
Examples
Masculine: sg nom hlasoza (Phil 2:28 A/B) ‘more cheerful’ (hlas* ‘cheerful’), jūhiza
(Lk 15:12, 13) ‘younger’ (juggs* ‘young’), maiza (11x), minniza (Mt 11:11, Lk 7:28) ‘the
least’ (with quasi-superlative force, like Gk. mīkróteros, Lat. minor), swinþoza (3x)
11 Ammianus Marcellinus (Res Gestae 28.5.14) reports that sacerdōs apud Burgundiōs omnium maximus
vocātur Sinistus ‘the highest priest of all among the Burgundians is called Sinist’ (cf. Weinhold 1870: 9;
Kirchner 1879: 7; Wagner 1909: 5). This is a specialization of the early Germanic tradition in which any
elder (sinist-, never adjectival) could perform the functions of a priest (Laird 1940: 61f.).
3.12 Comparison of adjectives 79
‘stronger’ (swinþs* ‘strong’), usdaudoza (2Cor 8:17A/B) ‘more zealous’ (usdauþs* ‘vig-
orous, zealous’), wairsiza (Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21, 1Tim 5:8A/B) ‘worse’, acc usdaudozan
(2Cor 8:22A/B) ‘more diligent, committed’, dat minnizin (Rom 9:12A), gen minnizins
(Mk 15:40); pl nom batizans (Mt 10:31), frodozans (Lk 16:8) ‘shrewder, wiser’ (froþs
1Tim 3:2A/B ‘wise, shrewd’), swinþozans (1Cor 10:22A) ‘stronger’, acc managizans
(1Cor 9:19A, 2Cor 4:15B), dat managizam (1Cor 15:6A, 2Cor 2:6A/B).
Neuter: sg nom azetizo (4x) ~ azitizo (Mk 10:25) ‘easier’ (*azets ‘easy’), batizo (9x,
1 dupl), hardizo (Sk 6.3.24) ‘harder’ (hardus ‘hard’), managizo (Mt 5:20, 5:37, Mk 12:33),
maizo (Lk 9:13, Jn 10:29), sutizo (Mt 11:22, 24+ [5x]) ‘more tolerable’ (suts 1Tim 3:3A/B
‘mild, gentle’), þaurftozo (Phil 1:24B) ‘more necessary’ (þaurfts* ‘needful’), acc fawizo
(2Cor 8:15A/B), ‘comparatively few, too little’ (faus* ‘few’), maizo (Eph 3:20A/B, Sk
7.3.1f.), managizo (9x, 1 dupl), minnizo (2Cor 11:5B), dat wairsizin (2Tim 3:13A/B),
pl acc maizona (Jn 14:12).
Feminine: sg nom framaldrozei (Lk 1:18) ‘too old’ (Sturtevant 1930: 109), maizei
(Mk 12:31), mi(n)|nizei (Sk 3.4.7f.), speidizei (Mt 27:64) ‘last’ (supl spedists* ‘last, lat-
ter’; no positive), wairsizei (Mt 27:64), handugozei (1Cor 1:25A) ‘wiser’ (handugs ‘wise’
1Cor 1:20A), acc maizein (Jn 15:13, 19:11, Sk 6.1.24f.), dat managizein (2Cor 2:7A/B),
pl acc managizeins (Jn 7:31), dat managizeim (2Cor 11:23B).
Occasional double comparatives occur with mais ‘more; rather’, e.g. mais wulþri-
zans (Mt 6:26) ‘(rather) more valuable’, filaus mais usdaudozan (2Cor 8:22B) ‘much
more vigorously committed’. This was not the norm (four examples in Baldauf 1938:
52; cf. A. M. Sturtevant 1940: 457), and MS A has simply filu usdaudozan ‘much more
committed’.
Nongrammaticalized degrees of comparison use adverbs like abraba ‘exceedingly’
(to abrs [Lk 15:14] ‘severe’), e.g. (stains) was auk mikils abraba (Mk 16:4) ‘for (the
stone) was extremely large’, in archaic order (Sturtevant 1931: 60). Note also
((mais)) . . . waila (2Tim 1:18A/B) ‘more well’ for Gk. béltion, Lat. melius ‘better’
(Marold 1883: 80f., w. lit).
80 The nominal system
The -s nom can in principle contrast with the weak form: sa saiands ‘the sower’ : *sa
saianda ‘the one sowing’, but only two (inexact) contrasts occur (Meyer 1884: 537f.):
sa iupaþro qimands (Sk 4.2.20) ‘he who has come from above’ vs. sa qimanda (9x) ‘the
one coming’ = Gk. ho erkhómenos ‘the one (who is) coming’ (future for Sommer 1912);
iterative sa gaggands (Lk 6:47) ‘the one who (regularly) comes’ (Götti 1974: 10) vs. sa
afar mis gaggan|da (Sk 3.4.15f.) ‘the one to come after me’. The choice is not stylistic
(pace Trutmann 1972: 161ff.; cf. GGS 130f., GG 123). As a relative clause substitute
(§9.13) sa + -nda applies to (i) a specified individual, e.g. sa in maur|gin urrinnanda
12 Gothic and Nordic built the feminine PrP like managei (§8.5). The weak adjective (§3.6) is the same
as the PrP in the masculine and neuter but the feminine is like qino ‘woman’ (§8.24).
3.13 The nonpast (incompletive) participle 81
(Bl 2r.10f.) ‘the one who comes up in the morning’ (Melazzo 2015a), (ii) one processually
acting; sa +-nds (i) can render a Greek aorist participle, as sa taujands (Rom 10:5A) =
ho poi sās ‘he who did’, and (ii) designates any actant who does something (Melazzo
1992); cf. nonprocessual o sa gatairands þo alh jah bi þrins dagans gatimrjands þo (Mk
15:29) ‘ha! the one that tears down the temple and in three days (re)builds it!’.
For expected qiþands ‘saying’, note the otherwise unattested weak qiþanda (3x: Bl
1r.9, 1v.3, 1v.17f.) (Schuhmann 2016: 64), but taujands (Bl 2r.15) ‘doing’.
Daupjands ‘baptist’ has a mixed paradigm (Gering 1874: 315f.): nominal nom
Iohannes sa daupjands (3x) ‘John the Baptist’, acc Iohannen þana daupjand (2x), par-
ticipial gen Iohannis þis daupjandins (3x), dat Iohanne þamma daupjandin (2x), but
not (pace Sturtevant 1953: 57f.) to distinguish dat and acc, which the D-word does.
Among other functions, -s nominatives signal nominal agentives (Gering 1874:
314f.), e.g. daupjands ‘baptist’, talzjands* ‘teacher’ (cf. voc talzjand) always of Jesus
(Elkin 1954: 397, 444) ≠ PrP talzjands ‘teaching’, frijonds ‘friend’, fijands ‘enemy’, etc.
In all Germanic, at least the last two are ordinary nouns like Goth. nasjands ‘savior’,
gen nasjandis, etc. (Meyer 1884: 535f.; Sütterlin 1887: 21–9; GE 113; Mossé 1956: 99;
NWG 437–44; GG 108, 122f.), and preserve residues of the original inflection, e.g.
OHG nom pl friunt ‘friends’, fiant ‘enemies’ (Thöny 2013: 87ff.). Gothic observes the
contrast: pl nom/acc bisitands ‘neighbors’, frijonds ‘friends’ vs. participial pl nom/
acc frijondans ‘loving’; nominal nom pl m fi(j)ands (3x) ‘enemies’ vs. participial
fi(j)andans (2x) ‘hating’; etc.13 In the nominal function, dagand (dat Bl 2v.12), a pos-
sible recent loan translation of eccl. Lat. Illūminātor ‘illuminator’ (the Holy Spirit),
proves productivity (Schuhmann 2016: 66f.), as does fraujinond (gloss of frauja ‘master’
[Lk 2:29] GGS 164).
Substantivized nonmasculines keep participial forms, e.g. feminine horinondei
(Rom 7:3A 2x) = Gk. moikhalís ‘adulteress’, (preterite participle) neuter þata gamelido
(12x, 1 dupl) ‘that (which is) written down, scripture’ = Gk. graphē ́ ‘writing’ (Gering
1874: 318).
Agentives in -s require genitive or possessive adjective complements, e.g. saei ist
nasjands allaize manne (1Tim 4:10B, Bl 1r.24f.) ‘who is savior of all people’, frijonds
motarje jah frawaurhtaize (Lk 7:34) ‘a friend of tax collectors and sinners’, fijands gal-
gins (Phil 3:18A/B) ‘enemies of the cross’, fiands unsarai (Neh 6:16) ‘our enemies’. As
PrPs, frijonds, nasjands, etc. take acc complements (Schrader 1874: 12; see §9.12).
For substantivized participles, cf. galeikondans meinai (1Cor 11:1A) ‘my imitators’,
miþgaleikondans meinai wairþaiþ (Phil 3:17A/B) ‘be imitators together of me’, guþ niu
gawrikai þans gawalidans seinans (Lk 18:7) ‘will God not avenge his chosen ones?’,
galisiþ þans gawalidans seinans (Mk 13:27) ‘he will gather together his chosen ones’,
laisidai gudis (Jn 6:45) ‘God’s taught (ones)’ (Schrader 1874: 12).
13 As a calque, fijands is appositional in fi|jands manna þata gatawida (Bl 2r.21f.) ‘an enemy man
did this’; cf. Gk. ékhthros ánthrōpos ‘enemy man’, Lat. inimīcus homō / homō inimīcus ‘id.’ (Falluomini
2014: 289).
82 The nominal system
sg nom ik þu
acc mik þuk
gen meina þeina
dat mis þus
du nom wit jut*
acc ug(g)kis igqis/inqis
gen ugkara* iggqara
dat ug(g)kis ig(g)qis
pl nom weis jūs
acc uns(is) izwis
gen unsara izwara
dat uns(is) izwis
Weis, jūs, and some other -s forms end in -z before a vowel-initial clitic, e.g. weiz-uþ
‘and we’ (1Cor 4:10A), jūz-ei ‘you who’ (6x, 3 dupl), dat izwiz-ei (Gal 3:1A).
The possessive adjectives are meins ‘my’, þeins ‘your’, unsar ‘our’, izwar ‘your’, and
anaphoric seins* ‘his, hers, its (own)’. Long neuters meinata (4x), þeinata (8x), seinata
(Lk 9:51, 15:3) occur, but not *unsarata, *izwarata (nor *anþarata ‘other’, * aþarata
‘which of two?’), possibly for prosodic reasons.
A D-word with a possessive adjective has several functions. For instance, þiumagus
meins (Mt 8:6) ‘my servant’ represents new information while sa þiumagus meins (Mt
8:8, Lk 7:7) ‘id.’ is old information (§3.5), the servant already mentioned. The normal
order is D-N-poss (Harbert 2007: 152).
In ei þata anafulhano izwar fastaiþ (Mk 7:9) ‘that you may keep your tradition’, þata
forms a constituent with weak anafulhano ‘entrusted’ as sa does with liuba ‘beloved’
in the DP sunus meins sa liuba (Mk 1:11, 9:7, Lk 3:22, 9:35) ‘my beloved son’ (§3.10).
This is confirmed by the fact that otherwise strong adjectival forms occur with posses-
sive adjectives (§3.10).
Most nondual pronouns are frequent. Gen þeina occurs at 1Cor 12:21A, 2Cor
6:2A/B, Philem 1:20; unsara at Mk 9:22, Lk 1:78, Rom 14:12C, Eph 4:7A; and seina at
Lk 7:32. Acc igqis (Mk 1:17) is spelled inqis at Lk 19:31. Dat igqis (Mk 10:36, 14:13) is
written iggqis at Mt 9:29, Mk 11:2, 3. Gen iggqara [sic] occurs only at 1Cor 12:21A.
3.14–15 The personal pronouns 83
The dative/accusative plural forms uns and unsis (the latter formed like mis LIPP
2.57114) are distributed as in Table 3.9 (Snædal 2010: 307f.).
Table 3.9 Uns and Unsis
Gospels
Mt-Jn 2 4 5 10
Lk 3 7 14
Mk 4 2 6
Epistles 40 3 17 9
2Cor 35 3 15 6
In the Bologna fragment, only unsis occurs: acc (3x + 1x conjectured), dat (2x),
ambiguous (1x: bisunjane unsis §6.23), and probably dat (1x: gawitais unsis §4.43).
Little is known about functional differences between uns and unsis. In clause-final
position unsis outnumbers uns ten to one, but uns prevails with misso (3x, 1 dupl) and
silbans (5x dupl; unsis 2Cor 10:12B), silbam (4x, 3 dupl) (Dickhoff 1913). The fuller
form unsis may have been perceived as more formal or ceremonious (Snædal 2010:
313). In the Gospels, uns occurs only 16 times, four of which are in the Lord’s prayer:
(19) a) gif uns himma daga. | jah aflet uns þatei skulans sijaima (Mt 6:11f.)
‘give us on this day. And forgive us that we be debtors’
b) jah ni briggais uns in fraistubnjai, ak lausei uns af þamma ubilin
‘and (do) not lead us in(to) temptation, but deliver us from that evil (one?)’
(Mt 6:13)
The short form uns may have been used (a) because the Lord’s prayer was translated
into Gothic before the longer forms became productive (Jellinek 1926: 193), (b) to
make the prayer more colloquial or intimate (Snædal 2010: 313), or (c) for rhythmic
purposes (§10.4). Since unsis outnumbers uns an average of 2 : 1 in the Gospels, and is
the only form in the Bologna fragment, unsis was gaining in frequency as the more
characterized alternant, but had the potential for greater formality.
14 For attempted histories of the personal pronouns, see Schmidt (1978), Seebold (1984), Katz (1998),
Ringe (2017: 70ff., 233–6), LIPP 2.199–203, 502–10, 566–74, 805–14, 848ff., 855–60, MPIE 2.2.5.
84 The nominal system
sg nom is ita si
acc ina ita ija
gen is is izos
dat imma imma izai
pl nom eis ija ijos*
acc ins ija* ijos
gen ize(i) ize izo
dat im im im
The nom pl n ija is found only at Lk 2:50. The gen pl n ize, which is supposedly not
attested (GG 133), is found at Lk 2:22, Jn 16:4, 2Tim 2:17B.
For the use, cf. is jah þai miþ imma (Mk 2:25) ‘he and those with him’. Forms of
is can be used even where a change of reference is expected, e.g. biþe is anakumbida
in garda is (Mk 2:15) ‘as he (Jesus) reclined (at table) in his (Levi’s) house’ (cf.
Gk. autón . . . autoũ ‘him . . . his’). Conversely, different pronouns can be used for the
same person: gasakands im ni lailot þos rodjan (Lk 4:41) ‘rebuking them, he did not let
them speak’.
For discussion of the history, see LHE2 70, Stiles (2017), and LIPP 2.363–74.
15 Lühr (2000b: 170) posits a development ‘who-also’ > ‘who-ever’ > ‘each’, but Dunkel derives -uh from
*h2u 3.kwe ‘also each (time)’ (LIPP 2.343, 443), in which 3.kwe is a generalizing, distributive particle.
3.16–25 Interrogative, indefinite, and distributive pronouns 85
The interrogative pronoun ‘who, what?’ is used in direct and indirect questions and
free relatives. It is inflected only in the singular, and has all three genders, in contrast
to the rest of Germanic where there are no feminine forms (Matzel 1982/83). See
Table 3.11.
sg nom ƕas ƕa ƕo
acc ƕana ƕa ƕo
gen ƕis ƕis ƕizos*
dat ƕamma ƕamma ƕizái
inst ƕe
Though often listed as a separate lexical entry, the instrumental singular of the neu-
ter remains a functional case (cf. GG 137). It occurs 10x, e.g. e managizo taujiþ?
(Mt 5:47) ‘what more do you do?’, e galeikom þiudangardja gudis? (Mk 4:30) ‘with
what shall we liken the kingdom of God?’, e sijaina galeikai? (Lk 7:31) ‘with/to what
may they be similar?’, a matjam aiþþau a drigkam aiþþau e wasjaima? (Mt 6:31)
‘what shall we eat, what shall we drink, with what are we to be clothed?’.
In prepositional constructs, e occurs in bi e ‘whereby, how?’ and du e ‘for what
(reason), why?’.
Adjectival use is rare for the interrogative, e.g. as þiudans (Lk 14:31) ‘what king’.16
Normally the pronoun occurs with a genitive and takes the gender of that noun, e.g.
o mizdono habaiþ (Mt 5:46) ‘what (of) rewards do you have?’, in amma waldufnje
(Mk 11:28, 29, 33, Lk 20:2, 8) ‘on what authority’, lit. ‘on what of powers’ (§4.27).
As pronouns without a dependent partitive genitive, as ‘who?’ is used of males
(or sexually unspecified humans) and o of females; cf. as þannu sa sijai (Mk 4:41)
‘who then can this (man) be?’, o ist so aiþei meina (Mk 3:33) ‘who is my mother?’.
Neuter a ‘what’ with nonanimate entities is independent of gender, e.g. a ist so
sunja (Jn 18:38) ‘what is truth?’, a sijai braidei jah laggei jah hauhei jah diupei
(Eph 3:18A/B) ‘what may be the breadth and length and height and depth’ (cf. Matzel
1982/83).
The same forms when clitic (Bech 1952; Pagliarulo 2016) function as indefinites,
especially in conditional clauses, e.g. jabai as aipiskaupeins gairneiþ (1Tim 3:1A)
16 This rare use is more frequent in the indefinite function (Matzel 1982/83: 124), but may occur in
the Crimean graffiti: aṣ g(u)þ mikils swe g(u)þ unṣar ‘what god [is] (as) great as our God?’ (Korobov
& Vinogradov 2016: 145). If correct, this suggests that as could be used adjectivally independent of the
Greek (pace Sturtevant 1947b: 407f.), although Greek contact influence cannot be excluded.
86 The nominal system
‘if anyone desires a bishopric’, jabai o anþaraizo anabusne ist (Rom 13:9A) ‘if there is
any other commandment’ (lit. ‘of commandments’), jabai a managizo opam
(2Cor 10:8B) ‘if I boast somewhat more’. The indefinite need not be adjacent to
jabai; cf. jabai þugkeiþ as a wisan (Gal 6:3A/B) ‘if anyone thinks he is something’,
jabai as wiþra ana habai fairina (Col 3:13B) ‘if anyone should have a grievance
against (some) one’, jabai a habaiþ wiþra ana (Mk 11:25) ‘if you hold anything
against anyone’.
The indefinite function is frequent in negated clauses, but need only be clitic:
(20) a) wenja mik ƕo ƕeilo saljan at izwis
hope.1sg me indf:acc.sg.f while.gen.pl.f stay.inf at you.dat.pl
‘I hope to spend some time with you’ (1Cor 16:7B)
b) ni þarft ei þuk ƕas fraihnai (Jn 16:30)
‘you do not need that anyone question you’
c) skal þus ƕa qiþan (Lk 7:40)
‘I have to tell you something’
[Gk. ékhō soí ti eipeĩn ‘I have something to tell you’
(Odefey 1908: 75; Meerwein 1977: 26)]
d) izwara ƕas . . . ni-u frumist ga-sitands
you.gen.pl indf neg-Q first prfx-sitting
rahneiþ manwiþo
counts preparation.gen.pl (Lk 14:28)
‘will anyone of you . . . not first sit down and count the preparations?’
(Pagliarulo 2016)
Even in negated and clitic contexts, the interrogative function can remain, as in (21).
(21) ni-u ussaggwuþ aiw ƕa gatawida Daweid (Mk 2:25)
neg-Q read.2pl.pret ever what do.3sg.pret David
‘have you never read what David did?’
Derived from as is the distributive pronoun azuh ‘each’. The following forms are
attested: masc sg nom azuh (freq), acc anoh (Lk 9:23), gen izuh (Neh 5:18),
dat ammeh (7x), pl acc anzuh (Mk 6:7, Lk 10:1); neut sg dat ammeh (Lk 2:41);
fem sg nom oh (1Cor 11:5A), acc oh (1Cor 15:30A).
Examples: jera ammeh ‘each year’ (Lk 2:41), daga ammeh ‘each day’ (Mk 14:49,
Lk 16:19, 19:47, 1Cor 15:31A), oh qinono bidjandei ‘each praying woman’ (lit. ‘each of
women’) (1Cor 11:5A), nimai galgan seinana dag anoh ‘shall take his cross each day’
(Lk 9:23), insandida ins twans anzuh ‘(he) sent them forth two by two’ (Lk 10:1).
3.16–25 Interrogative, indefinite, and distributive pronouns 87
Relativized azuh saei (freq) ‘everyone that’ can be equivalent to ‘who(so)ever’, e.g.
azuh saei galaubjai du mis (Jn 12:46) ‘whosoever will believe in me’.
This formation is based on azuh plus gen þis, possibly in a partitive sense (‘each
of this/that (group)’) (Anderson 1936). Lühr (2000b: 171ff.) compares þishun ‘espe-
cially’, possibly from an older meaning ‘from there, of that’ (þis) plus ‘some/any
(way)’ (hun), and suggests that this may explain the frequency of þis ah with bid(j)
an ‘ask’, lit. ‘of what(soever) one asks’. This account entails reanalysis of þis in
þis aduh etc.
Forms include þis azuh (1x) ‘whosoever’, nom sg n þis ah (6x, all in Phil 4:8B)
‘what(so)ever’, acc sg m þis anoh (1x), dat sg m þis ammeh (2x), acc sg n þis ah
(9x, 1 dupl), gen sg n þis izuh (1x). All are obligatorily followed by a relativizer.
Examples: þis azuh ei qiþai (Mk 11:23) ‘whosoever may say’, þis anoh saei afai-
kiþ mik (Mt 10:33) ‘(I will disown) whomsoever who disowns me’, þis ammeh saei
habaiþ, gibada imma (Mk 4:25) ‘to whomsoever that has, it is given to him’,
þis ammeh þei wiljau, giba þata (Lk 4:6) ‘to whomsoever I want, I give it’, bidei
mik þis izuh þei wileis (Mk 6:22) ‘ask me whatsoever you want’. See also §§4.54,
9.30, 9.31.
Morphologically similar are the adverbs þis aduh (5x, 1 dupl) ‘wherever’ and þis aruh
(2x) ‘id.’. Both are obligatorily followed by þei (§9.30), lit. ‘wherever that’, or þadei (12x)
‘where’ (rel), lit. ‘wherever where’. All of the examples follow.
Þis aduh þei (B þe) ik wrato (1Cor 16:6A) ‘wherever I travel’, þis aduh þei gaggaiþ
in gard (Mk 6:10) ‘where/whenever you go into a house’, þis aduh þadei iddja (Mk
6:56) ‘wheresoever he went’, laistja þuk þis aduh þadei gaggis (Mt 8:19, Lk 9:57) ‘I will
88 The nominal system
follow you wheresoever you go’. The difference between þis aduh þadei ‘wheresoever’
and þadei ‘where’ alone is one of emphasis; cf. þadei ik gagga (5x), jūs ni maguþ qiman
(Jn 8:21, 22, 13:33) ‘where I am going, you cannot come’.
Þis aruh þei merjada so aiwaggeljo (Mk 14:9) ‘wherever the gospel is preached’,
þis aruh þei ina gafāhiþ (Mk 9:18) ‘where/whenever it seizes him’.
Beside interrogative as is arjis ‘who, which?’ (of more than two). The attested
forms in Table 3.12 occur one time each except for the nom sg m (Mk 9:34, Lk 9:46).
Examples: in arjis þize waurstwe staineiþ mik (Jn 10:32) ‘for which of these good
works are you stoning me?’, arja ist allaizo anabusne frumista (Mk 12:28) ‘which is
of all the commandments foremost?’, arjamma ize wairþiþ qens (Mk 12:23) ‘which
of these (men) will possess the woman?’. Attributive: wituþ auk arjos anabusnins
atgebum izwis (1Thess 4:2B) ‘for you know what commandments we gave you’.
The pronoun arjis ‘who, which?’ in combination with -uh has the meaning ‘each,
every’ in the following forms: masc sg nom arjizuh (freq), acc arjanoh (Lk 9:14,
Sk 4.2.11 <ƕarjano>), dat arjammeh (Lk 19:26, 1Cor 4:5A, 12:11A, Rom 12:3C),
neut sg nom arjatoh (Mk 9:49, Sk 6.2.21), dat arjammeh (1Cor 7:17A); fem sg
acc arjoh* (Mt 27:15 <ƕarjanoh>, Mk 15:6 <ƕarjo>).
Examples: arjizuh izwara (4x, 1 dupl) ‘each of you’, arjammeh habandane gibada
‘(it) is given to each of (those) having (i.e. who has)’ (Lk 19:26), azuh auk funin
saltada jah arjatoh hunsle salta saltada ‘for everyone shall be salted with fire and
each sacrifice (lit. of sacrifices) shall be salted with salt’ (Mk 9:49).
3.26 Pronominal substitutes 89
The pronoun arjizuh ‘each’ was strengthened by ain- ‘one’ (Lühr 2000b: 165ff.). This
pronoun occurs only in the singular and is best attested in the masculine: nom
ain arjizuh (Rom 12:5C, 1Thess 5:11B), acc ain arjanoh (5x, 1 dupl), gen ain arjizuh
(2Thess 1:3A/B), dat ain arjammeh (Lk 4:40, Col 4:6A/B, Eph 4:7A). For the rest,
only the accusative is found: n ain arjatoh (1Cor 7:17A), f ain arjoh (Eph 4:16A).
Examples: friaþwa ain arjizuh allaize izwara (2Thess 1:3A/B) ‘the love of every
one of all of you’, athaitands ain arjanoh faihuskulane fraujins seinis (Lk 16:5)
‘summoning each and every one of his master’s debtors’, aiwa skuleiþ ain arjammeh
andhafjan (Col 4:6A/B) ‘how you should respond to each and every individual’, saei
daig ain arjammeh hairtona ize (Bl 2v.13) ‘who fashioned the hearts for each and
every one of them’.
The qualitative interrogative (Douse 1886: 154) ileiks, ileika, ileik is declined like
a strong adjective. It is used for direct and embedded questions and borderline free
relatives, e.g. ileiks ist sa (Mt 8:27) ‘what sort (of man) is this?’, ileikamma dauþau
skulda gadauþnan (Jn 12:33) ‘by what kind of death he was to die’, ileika mis waurþun
in Antiaukiai (2Tim 3:11A/B) ‘such (things) as happened to me in Antioch’, ileika so
qino sei tekiþ imma (Lk 7:39) ‘(he would know) what sort of woman (this is) who is
touching him’, sai, ileikaim bokom gamelida izwis (Gal 6:11A ~ B izwis gamelida) ‘see,
what sort of letters I wrote to you with’.
The quantitative interrogative elauþs* occurs only in acc sg f: elauda gatawida
izwis usdaudein (2Cor 7:11A/B) ‘what great diligence it produced in you’.
wanted’, swa filu auk swe fauragameliþ warþ (Rom 15:4C) ‘for everything that was
written in the past’.
Examples
ni ainummehun gaskoþum, ni ainnohun frawardidedum, ni ainnohun bifaihodedum
(2Cor 7:2A/B) ‘we wronged no one, we corrupted no one, we defrauded no one’, ni
mahta was fram ainomehun galeikinon (Lk 8:43) ‘she could not be healed by anyone’.
With a preposition, ni du ainaihun þizo insandiþs was Helias (Lk 4:26) ‘not to any of
them was Elijah sent’, contrast Gk. pròs oudemíān ‘to no one’ (Schulze 1909: 329).
A problematic example is ni ainishun is þaurbeiþ (1Thess 4:12B), variously
interpreted ‘ye may have lack of nothing’ (Pagliarulo 2016: 116), which assumes
3.27 Negative polarity 91
intensification of ainishun by is, i.e. ‘need of nothing whatever’ (Douse 1886: 211),
and presupposes that both are neuter, or ‘(that) you may not need anything that
belongs to anyone’, taking ainishun as gen sg m (‘anyone’) and is as gen sg n ‘any-
thing’ (so Snædal, for instance).17
A negative presupposition can also trigger a form of ainshun in the absence of ni,
e.g. jau ainshun þize reike galaubidedi imma (Jn 7:48) ‘did any of the rulers believe in
him?’ The presupposition is that none did (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 576).
Masculine singular only is ni mannahun ‘no man, no one’, which occurs in all cases:
nom mannahun (Mk 9:39, Sk 7.1.12, restored from ahun), acc mannanhun (3x), gen
manshun (1x), dat mannhun (7x, 1 dupl). For the use, cf. ni kara þuk manshun
(Mk 12:14) ‘you have no bias for anyone’ (§4.10).
Aiw (17x, 1 dupl) ‘(for) ever’ is a specialized accusative of aiws* ‘age’ and occurs only
in negated phrases or clauses, e.g. ni ( . . . ) aiw ‘never’, ni anhun aiw rodida manna
(Jn 7:46, Sk 8.1.23–5) ‘never did any man speak like this man’ (Falluomini 2016a:
283f.). For an analysis of ni ( . . . ) aiw, see Eythórsson (1995: 142–6).
Nearly all forms of waiht(s) (freq) ‘thing’ are negated and appear in polarity
contexts, e.g. sai ei mannhun ni qiþais waiht (Mk 1:44) ‘see that you do not say any-
thing to anyone’ (Gk. hórā mēdenì mēdèn eípēis), ni beduþ ni waihtais (Jn 16:24) ‘you
have asked nothing’, waiht ni andhof (Mk 14:61) ‘he answered nothing’ (cf. Harbert
2007: 378). In subject or topic position, sentential negation can be signaled (Coombs
1976: 46f.; Harbert 2007: 387f.), e.g. ni waiht auk ist gahuliþ (Mt 10:26) ‘for nothing
is (has been) concealed’. Prepositional constructions differ from the Greek, e.g. ni
in waihtai (Phil 1:20B) ‘not in (any)thing’ for Gk. en oudení ‘in nothing’ (Schulze
1909: 329).
Another use of waiht is to create an emphatic negative (Masuda 1978: 11–15). This is
clearest in the absence of an argument position, as in (22) (Harbert 2007: 396).
(22) iþ faur mik silban ni waiht ƕopa (2Cor 12:5A/B)
but for me. acc self.acc neg ‘thing’ boast.1sg
‘but I will not boast a bit on behalf of my self ’
Ni waiht illustrates the beginning of the complex negator in Germanic; cf. OE nā wiht
‘not a thing’ > ME nāwiht, nōwuht > nought, not; OHG niwiht ‘nothing’ > Germ. nicht
‘not’, nih (h)ein ‘not one’ > nein, kein ‘no’, etc. (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 580).
17 Both ainishun and is are technically ambiguous as to gender, as is the Greek mēdenòs khreíān
ékhēte ‘(that) you may have need of nobody/nothing’, hence the different English translations, some with
‘nobody’, some with ‘nothing’, some with both. What is the function of is? If indeed neuter, it is parallel
to Lat. aliquid ‘anything’ in nūllīus aliquid dēsīderētis ‘(that) you may not be wanting anything that belongs
to anyone’. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, question 187a, article 5, argument 2) mentions a gloss
on this passage: et nōn dēsīderābitis rem alterīus, nēdum rogētis vel tollātis aliquid ‘and you shall not covet
what belongs to another nor even ask or beg for anything’. If the Gothic construction is like the Latin, is
is neuter and the genitive complement of þaurbeiþ, while ainishun is a genitive of belonging (§4.13), lit.
‘(no need of) anyone’s anything’.
92 The nominal system
From eila ‘hour’ is derived an emphatic indefinite eilohun (1x) ‘(not) for any hour
whatsoever’ (Sturtevant 1949: 138f.): þaimei nih eilohun gakunþedum ufhnaiwein
(Gal 2:5A) ‘to whom we did not yield even for a moment’ (see ga-kunnan* §4.51).
Originally ‘except for one who’ (Jn 6:46), niba(i) saei is indefinite 3x, e.g. niba
saei ga|bairada iupaþ|ro (Sk 2.1.21ff.) ‘unless someone is born from above’ (§9.44).
While only one Latin source has quī ‘who’, Latin influence is possible (Marold
1881a: 157f.).
See also Negation (§11.15).
The distributive quasi-numeral tweihnai* ‘two each’ is attested only in the feminine
plural: acc nih þan tweihnos paidos haban (Lk 9:3) ‘and do not have two tunics apiece’;
dat miþ tweihnaim markom Daikapaulaios (Mk 7:31) [with two each boundaries of
Decapolis] ‘amid/between the two (on each side) coasts of Decapolis’ (§6.14), render-
ing Gk. anà méson tõn horíōn Dekapóleōs, Lat. inter mediōs fīnēs Decapoleōs ‘in the
midst of the boundaries of the Decapolis’.
The cardinal numbers from ‘one’ to ‘three’ are declined in all genders and cases.
‘Five’ to ‘eight’ and ‘ten’ are indeclinable. ‘Four’ and the ‘teen’ numbers are normally
undeclined (unless declined forms are accidentally unattested), but some dative and
genitive forms occur, e.g. gen niune ‘nine’ (Lk 15:7), twalibe ‘twelve’ (5x), dat fidworim*
‘four’ (conjectured for fidworin at Mk 2:3), ainlibim ‘eleven’ (Mk 16:14S, 1Cor 15:5A),
fimftaihunim ‘fifteen’ (Jn 11:18), etc. Hund* (n -a-, pl tant) ‘hundred’ and þūsundi
(*-ih2- / *-yeh2-) ‘thousand’ are nouns.
Numerical letter symbols are set off by a horizontal stroke under or over, the latter
with or without raised dots (GG 22). They are especially frequent in Nehemiah
(cf. Rousseau 2012: 133). Some combinations are given in (25), all acc pl. A complete
list is collected in Snædal (2013a: ii. 626ff.).
94 The nominal system
Ains
Ains ‘one’ can also mean ‘only, alone’ (Gk. mónos, Lat. sōlus). As such, it can be
inflected in the plural, e.g. ak ainai siponjos is galiþun (Jn 6:22) ‘but his disciples
went off alone’, ni bi þans bidja ainans (Jn 17:20) ‘not for them alone I pray’. Used
pronominally, ains means ‘one, a certain (one)’, and often occurs with a partitive
genitive (§4.25).
Twai
Forms of twai ‘two’: masc nom twai, acc twans, gen twaddje (Jn 8:17, 2Cor 13:1A/B,
1Tim 5:19A), dat twaim (4x); neut nom twa (Mk 10:8 2x), acc twa (5x), gen twaddje
(Sk 3.4.3f., 5.3.4), dat twaim (6x); fem nom twos (3x), acc twos (5x), dat twaim
(Mk 6:9).
Þreis
Þreis* ‘three’ is attested in masc acc þrins, gen þrije (Lk 3:23, 2Cor 13:1A/B, 1Tim
5:19A); neut acc þrija (Mk 14:5), dat þrim (e.g. Bl 2v.24); fem acc þrins (Lk 9:33).
Twalif
Twalif ‘twelve’ is well attested: nom twalif (Lk 9:12, 17, Jn 11:9) / twalib (Lk 8:1), acc
twalif (9x) / twalib (Lk 6:13), gen twalibe (Mk 5:42, 14:10, 14:43, Lk 8:42, Jn 6:71), dat
twalibim (Mk 4:10, 11:11, Jn 6:67) / twalif (Mt 11:1).
The -lif in ainlif*, twalif is probably from *likw-; cf. Lith. dvý-lika ‘twelve’ (Douse
1886: 80f.; Brugmann in Brugmann & Delbrück 1892: ii. 487f.; Grienberger 1900: 14f.;
Kotin 2012: 170; Neri 2016: 29; pace EDPG 11f., LHE2 229f.).
20 to 60
The numbers from ‘twenty’ to ‘sixty’ are built on tigjus* ‘tens, decads’: acc tiguns, gen
tigiwe, dat tigum; cf. miþ twaim tigum þūsundjo (Lk 14:31) ‘with twenty (of) thou-
sands (i.e. troops)’, jere þrije tigiwe (Lk 3:23) ‘of thirty years’ (more examples in
GG 128).
70 to 100
The numbers from ‘70’ to ‘100’ are built on -tehund, which is inflected one time as a
singular noun: in niuntehundis jah niune garaihtaize (Lk 15:7) ‘because of ninety-nine
just (persons)’. Contrast gen (widuwo) jere ahtautehund jah fidwor (Lk 2:37) ‘(a widow)
3.30 Ordinal numbers 95
of eighty-four years’, acc taihuntehund lambe (Lk 15:4) ‘a hundred (of) sheep’, nom pl
m gawandidedun þan sik þai sibuntehund (Lk 10:17) ‘the seventy then returned’.
The origin of -tehund is as follows (Szemerényi 1960a: 15, 24; LHE2 230): *pénkwe
dk md [five tens] became PIE *penkwēkōmd ‘fifty’ (cf. Gk. pent konta ‘id.’) and spread
to other numerals, e.g. ‘seventy’, whence PGmc. *sebunt-ēhund-, resegmented as
*sebun-tēhund- after PGmc. *sebun ‘seven’. Subsequently, -tēhund- spread to some of
the other decads (on which see Szemerényi 1960a: 27–44), including taihun-tehund
‘one hundred’. The variant spelling of -tehund as -taihund is modeled after taihun ‘ten’.
Hund*
Hund* (n pl) ‘hundred’ (< PIE *kmtóm LHE2 231): nom hunda (Neh 7:13, 39), acc
hunda (Mk 14:5, Lk 7:41), dat hundam (Jn 6:7, 1Cor 15:6A); used for numbers from
200 on, e.g. twaim hundam skatte hlaibos (Jn 6:7) ‘two hundred denarii-worth of
bread’.
Þūsundi
Þūsundi (f) ‘thousand’ (?< *tuh2s-ont- ‘big, swollen’ > Lith. tukstantis ‘thousand’; see
Neri 2009: 9; Gorbachov 2014: 31f.; LHE2 231): sg nom þūsundi (Neh 7:34, 40, 41, 42),
pl nom þūsundjos (6x ~ þūsundjus(?) Neh 7:17), acc þūsundjos (Sk 7.2.9), gen
þūsundjo (Lk 14:31), dat þūsundjom (Mk 8:19, 20, Lk 14:31). See the examples in (26).
(26) siai-u mahteigs miþ taihun þūsundjom gamotjan
be.3sg.opt-Q able.nom.sg with ten thousand.dat.pl meet.inf
þamma miþ twaim tigum þūsundjo
D.dat.sg.m with two.dat.pl tens.dat.pl thousand.gen.pl
gaggandin ana sik (Lk 14:31)
coming.dat.sg.m at/against refl.acc
‘whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him
coming at/against him with twenty thousand’
masc nt fem
Ahtuda* is found only in dat sg m in daga ahtudin (Lk 1:59) ‘on the eighth day’. For
niundo*, there is acc sg f und eila niundon (Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33) ‘until the ninth
hour’ (3:00 PM), bi eila niundon (Mt 27:46) ‘around the ninth hour’, and dat sg f
niundon eilai (Mk 15:34) ‘at the ninth hour’ (3:00 PM).
Taihundo* is attested only in acc sg f taihundon dail (Lk 18:12) ‘a tenth part, tithe’.
Fimftataihunda* is a hapax in the dative:
(27) in jera þan fimftataihundin þiudinassaus Teibairiaus (Jn 11:18)
in year.dat.sg then 15th-dat.sg.n reign.gen.sg Tiberius.gen.sg
‘now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius’
From fimfta-taihunda* one can infer that (i) ‘fifth’ should be an -n- stem *fimfta, (ii) the
construct is literally ‘fifth-tenth’, (iii) in such constructs the first constituent was not
inflected, and (iv) other teen ordinals should have been similarly constructed, viz.
*saihsta-taihunda ‘sixteenth’.
18 Rousseau (2011: 323, 2012: 244) presents a six-way system with ablative -þ-, elative -þro, allative -d- / -þ-,
illative -dre, locative -r, and perlative -ana. There is no suffixal distinction between ablative and elative, but
there are locatives in both -a and -r. Rousseau himself (2012: 244) admits that the opposition between
ablatival *-þ and allative -d plays no role in Gothic. Aljaþ may go back to *alyo-dhe/i (LIPP 2.22ff.), jainþro
to *yó 2.h2i ntro ad (i.e. an old ablative *-ōd < *-o + ad; cf. Delbrück 1870: 385), and jaindre to *yó 2.h2i ntre
eh1 (LIPP 2.30), i.e. an instrumental in *-eh1. For other proposed etymologies of the stem jain-, see App.
3.31 Deictic adverbs 97
Kuryłowicz 1964: 202ff.). Goal subdivides into underspecified direction toward (-þ)
and specified direction (-dre), hence the four-way division in Wilmanns (1896: 632).
Contrast the PIE concrete case opposition of locative–allative–ablative–perlative
(Kuryłowicz 1964: 189; Josephson 2011: 147). Additionally, (i) -ana is not consistently
perlative (pace Rousseau 2012: 242), (ii) there is considerable overlap among the suf-
fixes as well as with the corresponding prepositions and preverbs (Takahaši 1985), and
(iii) there are two locatives, one in -a which originated on P stems, and one in -(a)r
which is exclusive to pronoun stems (cf. Markey 1970: 73).
Locative -a predominates on P stems; cf. afta ‘behind’: þaim afta ufarmunnonds
(Phil 3:14A/B) ‘neglecting things behind’ (i.e. not turning back); dalaþa ‘below’:
wisandin Paitrau in rohsnai dalaþa (Mk 14:66) ‘with Peter being in the courtyard below’;
inna (Col 1:29A, 1Cor 5:12A, 2Cor 6:16A/B) ‘in(side), among’; at 2Cor 3:3A/B, inna
renders the prefix en- ‘in, on’ of Gk. eg-gegramménē ‘inscribed’; uta (15x) ‘outside’.19
Locative -r: ar (20x, 3 dupl) ‘where’ ( a is ‘why’), aljar (2Cor 10:1, 11B) [in another
place] ‘absent, away’, jainar (34x, 1 dupl) ‘there’, þar (Mk 6:10, Lk 9:4) ‘there’. Þar is
residual. Both occurrences are correlative [wh . . . there] (Klein 1994: 256).
Separation/source -þro: aljaþro (Jn 10:1, 2Cor 13:2, 10A/B, Phil 1:27B) ‘from else-
where, (by) another way’, allaþro (Mk 1:45, Lk 19:43) ‘from everywhere, from/on all
sides’, dalaþro (Jn 8:23) ‘from below’, aþro (Jn 9x, Mk 3x, Lk 3x) ‘from where’, innaþro
‘from within, inwardly’ (inna ‘within’), iupaþro ‘from above, from the top’ (iup ‘upward;
above’), jainþro ‘from there’ (Mt 4x, Mk 8x, Bl 2r.7), sundro (10x, 1 dupl) ‘apart, by
oneself, privately’, þaþro (11x) ‘from here; from there; next, later’ (Schulze 1927: 136f.).
Examples: wairp þuk þaþro dalaþ (Lk 4:9) ‘throw yourself down from here’, jūs us
þaim dalaþro sijuþ, iþ ik us þaim iupaþro im (Jn 8:23) ‘you are from (among) those
from below, but I am from those from above’, utaþro (Mk 7:15, 18) ‘(from the) outside’.
Allative -þ/d is confined to pronoun stems, e.g. aljaþ (Mk 12:1) ‘to another place,
elsewhere’; dalaþ (16x) ‘down, to the ground/bottom’; aþ (Jn 5x, ad Jn 13:36)
‘whither’; jaind (Jn 11:8) ‘thither’ and jaind-wairþs (Jn 18:3) ‘id.’; samaþ (Mk 9:25, 1Cor
5:4, 7:5, 14:26A) ‘to the same place, together’; rel þad-ei (12x) ‘whither, wherever’
(§9.30). Examples: aftra gaggis jaind (Jn 11:8) ‘are you going there again?’; jah atiddja
19 Adverbial *-ō can also be temporal, as in ufta (14x, 5 dupl) ‘often’, derived from *h1up-to- (EDPG 558)
or, more likely, is equivalent to Ved. up-tá- ‘scattered’ [*wep-] (LIPP 2.748, 833).
98 The nominal system
dalaþ rign (Mt 7:25, 27) ‘and came down rain’, iupaþro und dalaþ (Mt 27: 51, Mk 15: 38)
‘from top to bottom’, jainþro dalaþ atdraga þuk (Bl 2r.7) ‘I will drag you down (to hell)
from there’, modified from Isaiah 14:15 (Falluomini 2014: 295).
Illative (direction ‘hin’ or ‘her’) -dre is related to the Vedic adverb type átra, átrā
‘here’ (Jones 1979: 345f.; Haudry 2011: 126). It occurs only on pronoun stems, e.g. hidre
(Mk 11:3, Lk 14:21 ~ hidrei Lk 9:41) ‘to this place, in(to) here’ (Germ. hierher); adre
‘whither’ (Germ. wohin): adre sa skuli gaggan (Jn 7:35) ‘where does he intend to go?’;
jaindre (1x) ‘to that place’: þarei leik, jaindre galisan sik arans (Lk 17:37) ‘where there is
a corpse, there the eagles (vultures) will gather’.
The suffix -ana occurs on P, not pronominal, stems. It often corresponds to a Greek
ablatival adverb in -then (cf. Bezzenberger 1873: 76f.; Wilmanns 1896: 641f.).
Aftana translates Gk. ópisthen ‘behind’: atgaggandei in managein aftana attaitok wast-
jai is (Mk 5:27) ‘coming up behind in the crowd, she touched his garment’. It alternates
twice in the same construction with aftaro (also rendering Gk. ópisthen): duatgaggan-
dei aftaro attaitok skauta wastjos is (Mt 9:20 ~ Lk 8:44 atgaggandei du . . . ) ‘coming
up behind, she touched the hem of his garment’. The only other occurrence of aftaro
is standandei faura fotum is aftaro greitandei (Lk 7:38) ‘standing at his feet behind
(him) weeping’.
Innana (2x) ‘(on/to the) inside’ contrasts with utana ‘(on the) outside’ (Gk. éxōthen).
1. locational (Gk. ésōthen) utana waihjons, innana agisa (2Cor 7:5A/B) ‘conflicts on
the outside, fears within’; 2. directional (Gk. ésō) gatauhun ina innana gardis (Mk 15:16)
‘they led him inside the courtyard’ (cf. Takahaši 1985: 778).
Utana has 5 other occurrences, e.g. utana weihsis (Mk 8:23) ‘out of the village’
(Gk. éxō), utana swnagogais (Jn 9:22) ‘outside of the synagogue’ (i.e. excommunicated,
Gk. aposunágōgos ‘excluded from the synagogue’), az|gon kalbons gabran|nidaizos
utana bi|baurgeinais (Sk 3.3.1–4) ‘the ashes of a heifer burned outside of the camp’.
Utana ‘outside’ can contrast with innuma ‘inner’: sa utana unsar manna frawardjada,
aiþþau sa innuma ananiujada (2Cor 4:16B) ‘our outward person is decayed, but the
inner one is renewed’; cf. Gk. ho éxō hēmõn ánthrōpos ‘our outside person’, ho ésōthen
‘the one on the inside’.20 Utana differs from uta in being more figurative: þaim uta
(1Tim 3:7A, Col 4:5A/B) etc. means literally ‘those outside (outdoors)’ (cf. GGS 172).
Iupana translates Gk. ánōthen ‘(from) above’, NT ‘over again, anew’, sometimes
emphatic with pálin ‘back; again’, as is Goth. aftra iupana in þaimei aftra iupana
skalkinon wileiþ (Gal 4:9A) ‘to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?’. The
Vulgate conflates pálin ánōthen into dēnuō ‘anew’. In this case a normally spatial suffix
is used temporally, probably as a calque on Greek ánōthen.
20 The ‘inner person’ (tòn ésō ánthrōpon) is rendered by Goth. innuman mannan (Eph 3:16A/B) and
þamma innumin mann (Rom 7:22A) (cf. Ratkus 2016: 45f.).
3.32 Sentential and VP adverbs 99
Hindana renders the semantically perlative Gk. pérān ‘across, beyond’: hindana
Iaurdanaus (Mk 3:8) ‘(from) across the Jordan’. It is unnecessary to assume a P [+gen]
because the adverbs innana and utana can also be construed with the genitive—unless
one assumes that with the genitive all of these are prepositional (e.g. Borrmann 1892:
36; Wrede 1920: 373; GGS 172; Takahaši 1985; Snædal). That is one possible synchronic
analysis, impossible to test in a dead language. For Schrader (1874: 53ff.) they are
adverbs and the relational meaning licenses genitive case.21
Samana translates Gk. háma ‘together’ and occurs 13x (1 dupl), as in (28).
(28) al|lai uswandidedun : | samana unbrūk|jai waurþun : (Sk 1.1.2–5)
allai ushniwun sama[na unb]r[ūkj]ai wau[r]þun
‘all turned aside; together they became useless’ (Bl 1r.22 = Rom 3:12, Ps 14:3)
[Gk. pántes exéklīnan, háma ēkhreiot́ hēsan,
Lat. omnēs dēclīnāvērunt, simul inūtilēs factī sunt ‘id.’]
Gk. ēkhre(i)othēsan ‘they became useless’ is a hapax (Falluomini 2014: 288, 305).
21 In Old Hittite, there is also disagreement on whether the local adverbs with genitive are postposi-
tions or free adverbs (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 297–300).
100 The nominal system
Since adverb types are not clearly defined, and there is considerable overlap and
ambiguity (Maienborn 2011: 1414ff.), unsurprisingly the morphology of -ba vs. -o is
not a reliable indicator of adverb type (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 599). For instance, andau-
giba (Jn 7:26, 10:24, 16:25, 29) ‘plainly, openly, publicly’ coexists with andaugjo (Mk
1:45, Jn 7:10, 18:20) ‘publicly, openly’. In the Gospel of John andaugiba usually means
‘plainly’ and at Jn 7:10 andaugjo means ‘openly, publicly’ (Francini 2009: 97).
Including the adverbs in -leiko (§7.27), 20 have -o exclusively, 35 have -(a)ba to the
exclusion of -o, and two admit both (Heidermanns 1996). Of these, Heidermanns
(p. 265) concludes, -o is the older relic, -(a)ba newer and productive. See -ba in the
Appendix.
A sample of the adverbs in -ba is presented in (29). For additional examples see
Bezzenberger (1873: 17–29, 34–54), Schwahn (1873: 25–43), Heidermanns (1996).
(29) a) abraba (Mt 27:54, Mk 16:4, Neh 6:16) ‘exceedingly, very’
b) ana-laugniba (Jn 7:10) ‘privately, in secret’
c) arniba (Mk 14:44) ‘safely’
d) bairhtaba (Mk 8:25, Sk 3.4.11, 6.3.4f. ‘clearly’, Lk 16:19 ‘luxuriously,
lavishly’, Col 2:15B ‘triumphantly’)
e) balþaba (Jn 7:13, Col 2:15B) ‘boldly, in public, openly’ (Francini 2009: 97)
f) harduba [hardly] (Mt 8:6, 2Cor 13:10B ~ hardaba A) ‘terribly, severely,
sharply’
g) hauhaba [highly] (Rom 11:20A, 12:16A) ‘arrogantly, conceitedly’
h) manwuba [preparedly] (2Cor 10:6B) ‘ready’
i) mikilaba (Phil 4:10B) ‘greatly’
j) raihtaba (Mk 7:35+ [6x]) ‘rightly, correctly’
k) sunjaba (1Thess 2:13B) ‘truly’ (normally rendered bi sunjai 23x ‘id.’)
l) swikunþaba (5x, 1 dupl) ‘openly, plainly’ (Francini 2009: 97f.)
m) ubilaba [evilly] (Mk 2:17, Jn 18:23) ‘wrong(ly); sick’
n) unana|siuniba (Sk 8.1.4f.) ‘invisibly’
o) unsahtaba (1Tim 3:16A) ‘uncontroversially’
p) unwairþaba (1Cor 11:27, 29A) ‘unworthily’
A sample of the adverbs in -o is listed in (30) (Bezzenberger 1873: 35–43; Schwahn
1873: 47–64; Wood 1923: 102ff.; Heidermanns 1996).
(30) a) alakjo (Mk 11:32+ [5x]) ‘altogether’
b) allandjo (1Thess 5:23A/B) ‘wholly, through and through’
c) arwjo (Jn 15:25, 2Cor 11:7B, 2Thess 3:8A/B) ‘freely, for naught, without
cause’
d) aufto (22x, 5 dupl) ‘surely, perhaps’
e) gahāhjo (Lk 1:3) ‘orderly, in order’
f) iudaiwisko (§8.44) ‘like a Jew’
g) misso (§9.7) ‘in turn, mutually’
h) sinteino (37x, 11 dupl) ‘always, ever’
3.32 Sentential and VP adverbs 101
Case functions
Languages have several kinds of structural and nonstructural case (under various
names). Structural case is assigned by syntactic position. Prototypical are subject and
object, which in the early Indo-European languages bear nominative and accusative
case respectively. Subjects and objects of nominalizations are genitive. The genitive
can also be inherent, as in Goth. gamunan triggwos (Lk 1:72) ‘remember the covenant’.
The accusative can be inherent (e.g. experiencer þana . . . ni huggreiþ (Jn 6:35) ‘he will
not hunger’) or lexical, like the object of certain prepositions, or nonpassivizable
extents like *fifty meters was thrown the ball (Baker 2015). Lexical case can be assigned
by a verb with an idiosyncratic lexical feature, and inherent case by virtue of a seman-
tic feature, which may be predictable (Woolford 2006). This distinction will be crucial
for passivization in Gothic.
Germanic), with features of that DP/NP (person and number for Germanic) copied
on a verbal inflection. More recently agreement is used for both forms of feature
matching (e.g. Corbett 2006; Miller 2014b: 5ff., w. lit). The latter is motivated for
Gothic because of much overlap.
In default situations, a verb agrees in person and number with a nominative
subject (§4.5). First person takes priority, as in ik jah atta meins ain siju (Jn 10:30)
‘I and my father are one’ (1du siju §5.31). A noun or conjoined nouns of the same
gender are modified by an adjective in gender, number, case (cf. §§3.9f., 4.5, 9.33).
Appositional NPs agree only in case. The case of relative pronouns has its own
rules (§9.38).
Agreement mismatches are of several definable types (GrGS 204f.; Balg 1891: 224–7;
Kapteijn 1911: 299f.; GE 166; Pagliarulo 2011a). One general Germanic exception, due
to merger of the masculine dual and neuter plural endings, involves neuter agreement
with (usually two) coordinated human (esp. male and female) subjects:
(1) (Zakarias jah Aileisabaiþ) wesun . . . garaihta ba (Lk 1:6)
(Zachariah and Elizabeth) were.3pl righteous.nom.pl.n both.nom.pl.n
‘Zachariah (m) and Elizabeth (f) were both righteous (n pl)’
(2) sijaina þo twa du leika samin (Mk 10:8)
be.3pl.opt D.nom.pl.n two.nom.pl.n to body same
‘those two (man and woman) shall be as the same flesh’
(3) Was Iosef jah aiþei is sildaleikjandona (Lk 2:33)
Was Joseph and mother his marveling.nom.pl.n
‘Joseph and his (Jesus’) mother marveled’
For neuter kanniþ, feminine kannida might be expected (to agree with handugei),
but sentence-initial neuters, paralleled in Old Norse, can substitute for the lack of
expletive ‘there’ (cf. Sturtevant 1947b: 411). Ei kanniþ wesi translates Greek
sentence-initial hína gnōristhẽi ‘that there be revealed’, the verb being an aorist
passive subjunctive.
In (5), neuter þata does not agree with the feminine gender of anabusns.
(5) þata ist anabusns meina, ei frijoþ izwis misso
D is commandment my comp love.2pl.opt you.acc.pl recip
‘this is my commandment, that you love one another’ (Jn 15:12)
By contrast, Gk. haútē ‘this’ agrees in feminine gender with entol ‘commandment’.
Compare also þata izwis taikns (Lk 2:12) ‘this (will be) a sign to you’ with taikns (f -i-)
‘sign’, a (n) ist wens (f) (Eph 4:18A/B) ‘what is hope?’, niu þata (n) ist sa timrja (m)
(Mk 6:3) ‘is this not the builder?’ (E. H. Sturtevant 1930; Matzel 1982/83: 124; see
§4.27). This construction is widespread in Germanic (Bernhardt 1885: 72; Naumann
1915: 27).
Lack of number and gender agreement is frequent with managei ‘multitude’ (GrGS
203f.), e.g. managei dugunnun bidjan (Mk 15:8) ‘the crowd (sg) began (pl) to ask’, alla
so managei hausidedun (Mk 12:37) ‘the entire crowd (sg) listened (pl) ’, was managei
beidandans Zakariins (Lk 1:21) ‘the multitude (sg f) was (sg) awaiting (pl m)
Zachariah’, ganasjiþ managein seina af frawaurhtim ize (Bl 1r.26–1v.1) ‘he (Jesus) will
save his people (sg f) from their (pl m) sins’ (§9.6); cf. run gawaurhtedun . . . so hairda
(Mt 8:32) ‘the herd (sg) made (pl) a run’ (§4.32). On þai fadrein (Jn 9:20, 22) ‘the
parents’ see App.
Modifiers are of mixed number in (6a, b).
(6) (a) allai Israel ganisand (Rom 11:26A)
‘all (pl) Israel (sg) will be saved (pl)’
(b) managei harjis himinakundis hazjandane guþ
multitude army.gen.sg heavenly.gen praising.gen.pl.m god.acc
‘a multitude of the heavenly host praising God’ (Lk 2:13)
Conjoined subjects can be treated as a singular entity for agreement, as in (7).
106 Case functions
Compare þarei malo jah nidwa frawardeiþ (Mt 6:19) ‘where moth and rust destroys’.2
Split agreement occurs in (3) above: was Iosef jah aiþei is sildaleikjandona (Lk 2:33),
lit. ‘was Joseph and his mother marveling’, in which was agrees with the nearest subject
Iosef and sildaleikjandona is neuter plural with conjoined subjects of different gender.
The singular agreement with ‘was’ follows the Greek ẽn ‘id. ’.
A noun in any gender or number can serve as predicate to an animate or inanimate
subject whether verbal agreement is present or not:
(8) sa-ei ist frisahts gudis (2Cor 4:4A/B, Col 1:15A/B)
nom.sg.m-rel is image.nom.sg.f god.gen
‘(he) who is the image of God’
The ultimate in lack of agreement occurs in (10) where þat-ist ‘that is’ is parenthetical
like ‘i.e.’, and meinos brusts is appositional to ina.
(10) iþ þu ina, þat-ist meinos brusts, andnim (Philem 12)
but you him that-is my.acc.pl.f breast.acc.pl.f receive.2sg.impv
‘but you, receive him, i.e. my heart’
This interpretation is confirmed by the Greek sù dè autón, toũt’ éstin tà emà splágkhna,
proslaboũ ‘id.’, in which toũt’ éstin ‘that is’ cannot be a relative clause because of the lack
of gender agreement: acc sg m autón ‘him’ vs. nom sg n toũto ‘this’; splágkhna (lit.
‘guts’) is neuter plural, and the case is acc, like Goth. brusts. Another example is Goth.
gamainjaim handum, þat-ist unþwahanaim (Mk 7:2) ‘with defiled, i.e. unwashed,
hands’. Similar examples occur with rel þatei ist (Eckardt 1875: 49; Kapteijn 1911: 299f.).
2 Nidwa translates Gk. brõsis [a consuming], which also means ‘food’, in which case it is translated by
mats, e.g. Jn 6:27 mat (Barasch 1973: 142).
4.5–6 Nominative, Vocative 107
Quirky case is more frequent in the other Germanic languages, especially modern
Icelandic,3 but Gothic has some examples, mainly in the dative and accusative.
Absolute structures (§§4.31, 9.3, 9.14f.) and accusative and infinitive (§§9.24ff.) are
among the leading examples.
Since subjects bind anaphors in Gothic (§§9.3ff.), one of the tests for subjecthood
is binding. Like nominative subjects, quirky subjects behave as binders for anaphors,
as in the dative absolute (§§9.3, 9.14f.) in (11).
(11) us-gaggandin imma jainþro miþ siponjam seinaim
out-going.dat.sg.m him.dat thence with disciples.dat poss.refl:dat.pl
‘him going out from there with his own disciples’ (Mk 10:46)
(i.e. ‘as he was leaving there (Jericho) with his disciples’)
Other constructions are unclear because of the lack of available tests, such as
reflexivization or infinitival control. While dative experiencer mis is a potential quirky
subject in mis galeikaiþ in siukeim (2Cor 12:10A/B) ‘I take pleasure in infirmities’, there
is no syntactic evidence, for instance, from datives in impersonal constructions
(Eythórsson & Barðdal 2005: 832ff.).
4.5 Nominative
The nominative is the citation case for nouns and pronouns, the form in which a
nominal mentioned in a sentence appears, regardless of the syntactic environment:
(12) weis, ei ni qiþau jūs (2Cor 9:4A/B)
we.nom.pl comp neg say.1sg.opt you.nom.pl
‘we (not to mention “you”)’
In all of the older Indo-European languages the nominative is the case of most
subjects, as ik im ‘I am’, þu is ‘you are’, Iesus qaþ ‘Jesus said’, eis qeþun ‘they said’, etc.
Predicate nouns and adjectives are also prototypically nominative. Although other
constructions occur with wisan ‘be’ (or null equivalent), wairþan ‘become’, standan
‘stand’, haitan ‘call’ in the passive, and the like, predicate nominatives are frequent:
(13) braid daur jah rūms wigs (Mt 7:13)
broad.nom.sg.n door.nom.sg.n and roomy.nom.sg.m way.nom.sg.m
‘broad [is] the door and spacious [is] the way’
(14) jah dauþans us-standand unriurjai (1Cor 15:52A/B)
and dead.nom.pl.m.wk out-stand.3pl incorruptible.nom.pl.m
‘and the dead shall be raised incorruptible’
3 Wackernagel (1926: 113–17), Freidin & Sprouse (1991), Smith (1994), Faarlund (2001b, 2004a),
Eythórsson & Barðdal (2005), Harbert (2007: 214), Barðdal (2015).
108 Case functions
A simpler example than (15) is manna haitans Iesus (Jn 9:11) ‘a man called Jesus’, in
which all constituents are masculine and nominative singular.
4.6 Vocative
The vocative is the case of direct address. Historically it had a special form only
in the singular. In Gothic, nominatives in -s drop the -s to make the vocative
singular, and that is identical to the accusative. Apart from residues of the PIE vocative
in -u- stems, the Gothic vocative is identical to the nominative in all other paradigms
(§§3.2f.).4
Since PIE, the vocative was syncretized with the nominative in the plural, hence
Gothic examples like O unfrodans Galateis (Gal 3:1A) ‘o foolish Galatians’, classified
as nominative by Snædal, but syntactically vocative, hence the weak adjective
(§3.11).
The vocative in (16a) has been thought to contrast with the nominative in (16b).
Both match the Greek (GrGS 206; GCS 9; Sturtevant 1928b: 199f.; GE 169) but Curme
(1911: 368) argues that they are used appropriately and capture the sarcasm of the
Greek.
(16) a) hails, þiudan Iudaie (Mk 15:18) = Gk. v.l. khaĩre, basileũ (voc) tõn Ioudaíōn
‘Hail, king of the Jews!’ (a formal but sarcastic salute)
b) hails, þiudans Iudaie (Jn 19:3) = Gk. khaĩre, ho basileùs (nom) tõn Ioudaíōn
‘(may) the king of the Jews (be) well!’ (an ironic wish)
For the adjective hails (q.v. in App.), cf. jabai slepiþ, hails wairþiþ (Jn 11:12) ‘if he sleeps,
he’ll get well’. It has been suggested (e.g. Balg 1891: 229; Meillet 1908–9: 94) that in (16)
an optative of ‘be’ (sijais, sijai) is understood. This is plausible because of the strong
adjective form (cf. Curme 1911: 368f.), but unverifiable because (16) contains the only
examples of hails in a greeting.
With verbs of the calling class a nominative or vocative sometimes occurs in place
of another case (such as accusative), e.g. a mik haitid frauja, frauja (Lk 6:46) ‘why do
you call me, “Lord, Lord”?’, jūs wopeid mik: laisareis[[areis]] jah frauja (Jn 13:13) ‘you
call me “teacher” and “Lord” ’ (cf. Douse 1886: 213f.). For the first of these, Greek uses
vocatives kurie, kurie ‘Lord, Lord’, and for the second, nominatives: ho didáskalos kaì
4 For the -u- stem sunus ‘son’, for instance, the inherited vocative (§3.2) occurs in sunau Daweidis (4x)
(beside sunu Daweidis Lk 18:38) ‘son of David’ and sunau gudis (3x) ‘son of God’. Some irregular vocatives
are lifted from the Greek, e.g. Iesu Nazorenai (Mk 1:24) = Gk. Iēsoũ Nazarēné ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (Lühr
1985: 151; Snædal 2018: 209).
4.7–11 Accusative 109
ho kurios ‘the teacher and the Lord’ (Bernhardt 1885: 73f.).5 In Gothic there is no dis-
tinction for frauja, but the vocative of laisareis is laisari (§3.2).
Syntactic vocatives are sometimes signaled by interjections, such as o (5x), e.g. o
kuni ungalaubjando (Mk 9:19, Lk 9:41) ‘o unbelieving generation!’. Two of the five do
not introduce vocatives, but nominatives in exclamatory expressions of admiration or
contempt, e.g. o diupiþa gabeins handugeins . . . gudis (Rom 11:33A+C) ‘O the depth of
the wealth (and) the wisdom of God!’; o sa gatairands þo alh jah bi þrins dagans gatim-
rjands þo (Mk 15:29) ‘ha! the one that tears down the temple and (re)builds it in three
days?!’ (§3.13, 6.33; cf. Douse 1886: 264; Rousseau 2012: 144).
Another interjection is jai ‘yea’, e.g. jai, atta (Lk 10:21) ‘yea, father’, jai, frauja
(Mt 9:28, Mk 7:28, Jn 11:27) ‘yea, lord’, jai, manna gudis (1Tim 6:11A/B) ‘yea, man of God’.
Vocatives can be signaled by a preceding þu ‘you’ or jūs ‘you (pl)’, e.g. þu leiki, hailei
þuk silban (Lk 4:23) ‘you, physician, heal yourself!’, jūs wairos frijoþ qenins izwaros
(Eph 5:25A) ‘you, men, love your wives!’. These have no pronoun in Greek (GrGS
182f.; Kapteijn 1911: 294), but for jūs broþrjus (Rom 7:4A, 1Thess 5:4B, 2Thess 3:13A/B)
‘you, brethren’ Greek has hūmeĩs (Lat. vōs) ‘you (pl)’ except at Rom 7:4.
Although the vocative was largely lost as a morphological category, it remained
syntactically distinct. Weak adjectival forms without a determiner accompany a noun
in the vocative, e.g. atta weiha ‘holy father’, goda skalk ‘good servant’, etc. (§3.11). In the
latter, goda is morphologically identical to the nominative, and skalk to the accusative.
The intersection of the adjective and the noun maintains a formal difference between
the vocative and other case functions, albeit displaced to syntax.
4.7 Accusative
In the older Indo-European languages the accusative is prototypically the form for
thematic and patientive objects of verbs, cognate objects, and secondary predicates. It
also functions as a perlative (path, spatial and temporal expanse) and allative (direction
or motion to or toward a goal, or attainment of the goal). There are also prepositional
uses, a relational accusative, and various other constructions (Meier-Brügger 2010:
402ff.). For the accusative absolute see §9.14.
Cognate objects are those that express the same semantic (and generally formal) con-
tent as the verb, often referred to as a figura etymologica (§1.6). While Gothic often
5 Hebrew had no vocative, and with religious appellatives the nominative in Greek, Latin, and Gothic
is a Hebrew calque (Kauffmann 1920: 9; Wackernagel 1926: 54; Costello 1986: 177). However, Curme
(1911: 370f.) argues that the two constructions are different and native to Gothic. The apparent vocative
in the first preserves the Greek direct address, the nominative in the second has the force of a predication.
110 Case functions
avoids cognate objects (Wolfe 2006: 210f.), those that are entities go into the acc with
transitive verbs (cf. Bernhardt 1882: 3; GCS 49f.; Toporova 1989: 75; Wolfe 2006: 211f.;
Rousseau 2012: 35f.), e.g. fiais fiand þeinana (Mt 5:43) ‘hate your enemy’, ni huzdjaiþ
izwis huzda ana airþa (Mt 6:19) ‘do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth’,
haifstei þo godon haifst (1Tim 6:12A/B) ‘fight the good fight’, ei waurkjaima waurs(t)wa
gudis (Jn 6:28) ‘that we may do (lit. work) the works of God’, ohtedun sis agis mikil (Mk
4:41) ‘they feared a great fear for themselves’. For cognate objects with intransitive
verbs and overlap see §4.36.
Only twos ‘two’ is relevant because rasta aina depends on ana-nauþjan* (§6.42). Rasta
is literally ‘interval’ (EDPG 405). The Germanic mile was about 3000 Roman paces
(4830 meters = 15,847 ft., or three English miles), three times a Roman mile.
For duration in time, cf. wintru wisa (1Cor 16:6A/B) ‘I (shall) stay (for) the winter’,
qino wisandei in runa bloþis jera twalif (Lk 8:43) ‘a woman being in the flow of blood
(for) twelve years’, wenja mik o eilo saljan at izwis (1Cor 16:7B) ‘I hope to spend
some time with you’, galaugnida sik menoþs fimf (Lk 1:24) ‘she hid (herself) five
months’; cf. menoþs saihs (Lk 4:25) ‘six months’, menoþs þrins (Lk 1:56) ‘three months’.
Many more examples can be found in Van der Meer (1901: 61f.).
Often cited here (e.g. GE 170) is alla naht þairh-arbaidjandans (Lk 5:5) ‘toiling
through the night’, but the P þairh is incorporated into the verb (§6.41), and therefore
the accusative case is dependent on that rather than exemplifying this construction.
Because experiencers are not prototypical subjects, which are agentive, it is common
crosslinguistically for experiencer verbs to be impersonal (see the papers in Malchukov
4.7–11 Accusative 111
& Siewierska 2011). Predicates of liking and (especially) negative experience preferen-
tially have the experiencer in an oblique case (Viti 2017). Apart from weather verbs
that project no external argument (except for rigneiþ Mt 5:45 ‘he brings rain’ with
a causative feature), impersonal null subjects (null expletive pro) have 3sg neuter
features (cf. Eng. it). Nominative case is not licensed and the experiencer is assigned
an oblique case, mostly accusative for Gothic.
(18) þana gaggand-an du mis ni huggr-eiþ jah
D.acc.sg.m coming-acc.sg.m to I.dat neg hunger-3sg and
þana galaubjand-an du mis ni þaurs-eiþ (Jn 6:35)
D.acc.sg.m believing-acc.sg.m to me neg thirst.3sg
‘the one coming to me will not hunger
and the one believing in me will not thirst’
The verbs huggrjan ‘hunger’ and þaursjan ‘thirst’ are impersonal and take an accusa-
tive of the experiencer. This is genuine Gothic and differs markedly from the Greek
personal construction ou m peinásēi ‘will not be hungry’, ou m dips sēi ‘will not be
thirsty’. The Latin Vulgate and Vetus Latina manuscripts also use a personal construc-
tion: nōn ēsuriet . . . nōn sītiet ‘will not hunger . . . will not thirst’ (VL 1963: 61).
Gredon* ‘to hunger’ occurs only once and has an accusative experiencer: jabai gredo
fijand þeinana (Rom 12:20A/C) ‘if your enemy is hungry’. By contrast, the adjective
gredags (11x) ‘hungry’ occurs in personal structures, e.g. þan þaurfta jah gredags was
(Mk 2:25) ‘when he was in need and hungry’.
For impersonal ga-daban ‘befit’, cf. swaswe gadob þans (Sk 3.3.10f.) ‘as it befitted
them’ (§5.10).
With impersonal kara (3x) ‘care; be concerned’, kar’ ist <karïst> (Jn 10:13) ‘(he)
cares’, kara wesi (Jn 12:6) ‘(he) cared’, the experiencer is in the accusative and the target
of concern in the genitive.6
(19) ni kar-ist ina þize lambe (Jn 10:13)
neg care-is he.acc D.gen.pl.n sheep.gen.pl.n
‘he has no concern for the sheep’
(20) ni kara þuk mans-hun (Mk 12:14)
neg care you.acc man.gen.sg-indf
‘you have no bias for anyone’
(21) ni-u kara þuk þiz-ei fraqistnam (Mk 4:38)
neg-Q care you.acc gen.sg.n-rel perish.1pl
‘do you not care about the (fact) that we are perishing?’
6 The impersonal construction (5x) is confined to the Gospels less Luke. The Epistles use personal wk 2
karon* ‘be concerned’, attested only in the 2sg opt ni karos (1Cor 7:21A) ‘do not be concerned’, and
prefixed ga-karon* ‘take care of ’, only 3sg aiwa aikklesjon gudis gakaroþ (1Tim 3:5A) ‘how (shall) he
take care of God’s church?’
112 Case functions
With skaman* sik ‘be ashamed’, the experiencer is split between the nominative and
a simple reflexive in the accusative; the stimulus is in the genitive.
(22) unte sa-ei skamaiþ sik meina jah waurde
for who-rel shame.3sg refl me.gen and word.gen.pl
meinaize . . . jah sunus mans skamaiþ sik
my.gen.pl.n . . . and son man.gen.sg shame.3sg refl
is (Mk 8:38)
him.gen.sg
‘for he who is ashamed of me and my words,
. . . also the son of man will be(come) ashamed of him’ (cf. Katz 2016: 170)
4.12 Genitive
The genitive case has a large number of syntactic and semantic functions, many of
which are derivable (see, e.g., Ultan 1978, Barker 2011). For our descriptive purposes,
a taxonomy suffices. In most of the early Indo-European languages, including
Gothic, the adnominal and relational genitives pattern together, as do the adverbal
and partitive.
The relational genitive encodes many relationships, e.g. Hershey’s chocolate is that
produced by Hershey. Jill Ellis’ team can be the one she plays for, manages, likes, etc.
The complicated animacy, referentiality, and definiteness features that determine the
-s genitive or the of construction in English are discussed in Miller (2010: ii. 53ff.,
w. lit). Historically of invaded the adverbal-partitive domain in Old English and was
generalized later to the objective genitive and a few other adnominal-relational areas.
This partially duplicates the history of dē ‘(down) from’ in Latin and its ultimate
replacement of the genitive in Romance (Miller 1969). The Gothic data are collected
in Schrader (1874).
A frequent adnominal use of the genitive in the early IE languages was to denote
belonging and ownership (Watkins 1967; cf. Hettrich 2011, Pinkster 2015: 772–5),
e.g. in garda Paitraus (Mt 8:14) ‘in(to) Peter’s house’. The implication of house owner-
ship was so strong that gard- could be omitted (Bernhardt 1885: 80): fram þis
fauramaþleis swnagogais* <swnagogeis> (Lk 8:49) ‘from (the house) of the director of
the synagogue’.
Related to belonging and ownership are other relationships involving control
or dominance, such as frauja himinis jah airþos (Lk 10:21) ‘Lord of heaven and earth’,
in þamma reikistin unhulþono (Mk 3:22) ‘in (connection with) the mightiest (one/
prince) of the demons’, and relationships of direct or indirect control, as in (23).
(23) wair ist haubiþ qenais swaswe jah Xristus haubiþ
‘the man is head of the wife just as also Christ (is) head
aikklesjons (Eph 5:23A)
of the church’
The use of aigan* ‘own; possess’ is instructive in connection with a ‘wife’ and genitives:
114 Case functions
(24) ƕarjis þize wairþiþ qens? þai auk sibun aihtedun þo du qenai (Lk 20:33)
‘of which of these will she get to be the wife? for the seven had her as wife’
Examples (24–6) show that the genitive has the same meaning(s) in predicative
use (GrGS 226f.; Winkler 1896: 324ff.; GCS 149f.); cf. also is ist sa manleika
(Mk 12:16) ‘whose is this image?’. Note the equivalent pronominal possessive
adjective in (25b).
(25) a) þize. . . ist þiudangardi gudis (Lk 18:16)
‘theirs is the kingdom of God’ (i.e. ‘the kingdom of God belongs to them’)
b) unte izwara ist þiudangardi himine (Lk 6:20)
‘for yours is the kingdom of the heavens’
(26) unte ni sijuþ lambe meinaize (Jn 10:26)
‘because you are not of my sheep’ (i.e. ‘you do not belong to my flock’)
Other ramifications of control are regulation and temporary charge, e.g. fau-
ramaþleis swnagogais (Lk 8:41) ‘director of the synagogue’, fauragaggja baurgs (Rom
16:23A) ‘treasurer of the city’, fauramaþleis motarje (Lk 19:2) ‘head of the tax collectors’
(§7.3).
More generally, the genitive involves relationships of various types, such as kin-
ship (GCS 136f.), as in sunus mans (Mt 9:6, Mk 2:10, Lk 5:24, etc.) ‘son of man’,
and patronymics: Laiwwi þana Alfaiaus (Mk 2:14) ‘Levi the (son) of Alphaeus’,
Iakobu þana Zaibaidaiaus (Mk 1:19) ‘James the (son) of Zebedee’, Iakobau þamma
Zaibaidaiaus (Mk 3:17) ‘to James the (son) of Zebedee’ (§3.5; for the dat, see Sturtevant
1930: 111f.).
Other kinship terms can be omitted when contextually recoverable (Bernhardt
1882: 2), e.g. Marja so Iakobis (Mt 27:56, Mk 16:1) ‘Mary the (mother) of James’, Iudan
Iakobaus (Lk 6:16) ‘Judas (brother) of James’ (‘son of James’ in some versions).
Human relationships include frijonds motarje jah frawaurhtaize (Lk 7:34) ‘a
friend of tax collectors and sinners’ (GCS 137–44), þai Xristaus (1Cor 15:23A) ‘those
(who are) Christ’s’, þai þiudo (Mt 6:7) [those of the nations] ‘heathens’, etc. (Schrader
1874: 17).
The largest category encompasses relationships with entities and abstractions, e.g.
aikklesjo gudis libandins (1Tim 3:15A) ‘the church of the living God’ (GCS 144–59).
A few examples of relational genitives and those denoting greater abstraction
follow:
(27) saurgos þizos libainais (Mk 4:19)
worry.nom.pl this.gen.sg.f life.gen.sg.f
‘the cares relating to this life’ (Gk. aiõnos ‘era, world’, v.l. bíou ‘of life’; cf. Lk 8:14)
(28) in uswissja hugis seinis (Eph 4:17A/B)
in futility.dat.sg thought.gen.sg.m poss.refl:gen.sg.m
‘in the futility of their thought’ (i.e. that characterizes their thinking)
4.12–29 Accusative 115
Examples (29) and (30) demonstrate the recursivity of genitives, and (31) illustrates
the equvalence of genitives and pronominal possessive adjectives (Schrader 1874: 10f.).
(31) biþe qimiþ in wulþu seinamma jah attins
when comes in glory.dat.sg.m poss.refl:dat.sg.m and father.gen.sg
‘when he comes in the glory of himself and the father’ (Lk 9:26)
A superlative in a partitive structure agrees with the genitive in gender (§4.26),
but not when the genitive is relational: in undaristo airþos (Eph 4:9A) ‘into the
deepest (n) (region) of earth (f)’, related to the substantivized neuter (cf. Wagner
1909: 47, 48).
A genitive indicating the source occurs in examples like aiwaggeli ganistais izwaraizos
(Eph 1:13B) ‘the gospel (as source) of your salvation’, launa frawaurhtais (Rom 6:23A)
‘the wages of (resulting from) sin’, wulþus fraujins (Lk 2:9) ‘the glory of (emanating
from) the lord’, sarwa gudis (Eph 6:13A/B; sarwam . . . 6:11A/B) ‘the panoply (full
armor) of (supplied by) God’.
Related to the concepts of ownership and belonging, the genitive can designate
various kinds of figurative sources (author, originator, establisher, producer, etc.), e.g.
garehsnai gudis (Sk 8.3.17f.) ‘(by) God’s plan’, witoþ þata Mosezis (Jn 7:23) ‘the law of
Moses’, ana bokom Mosezis (Mk 12:26) ‘in the book of Moses’, anafilh þize sinistane
(Mk 7:3) ‘the tradition of the elders’.
Author and originator can be manifestations of abstract cause, hence wrakja galgins
Xristaus (Gal 6:12B) ‘persecution for the cross of Christ’ (§9.41; Kapteijn 1911: 324).
Metaphorical source is also frequently in the genitive, e.g. fuglos himinis (Mt 8:20+)
‘birds of heaven’, miþ milhmam himinis (Mk 14:62) ‘with the clouds of heaven’.
Overlap with the part-whole (partitive) genitive can be seen in blomans haiþjos
(Mt 6:28) ‘flowers of the wild field’, hawi haiþjos (Mt 6:30) ‘collective grass of the wild
field’ (Barasch 1973: 121), malma mareins (Rom 9:27A) ‘sand of the sea’. The difference
is that the sea can be conceptualized as the source of the sand while Nazareth in
Nazaraiþ Galeilaias (Mk 1:9) ‘Nazareth of Galilee’ is in no way the source of Galilee.
A subspecies of source, often listed as a separate category, is genitive of the remnant,
as in az|gon kalbons gabran|nidaizos (Sk 3.3.1ff.) ‘ashes of a burned heifer’.
116 Case functions
In some instances the genitive clarifies the specific variety or a subclass of the generic
denoted by the head noun (cf. Karpov 2005a: 126), e.g. kaurno sinapis (Mk 4:31,
Lk 17:6) ‘a grain of mustard seed’, hairda sweine (5x) ‘a herd of pigs’, kaurno aiteis
(Jn 12:24) ‘a kernel of wheat’, plat fanins niujis (Mk 2:21) ‘a patch of new cloth’, plat
snagins niujis (Lk 5:36) ‘a piece of a new garment’, in gairnei(n) lustaus (1Thess 4:5B)
‘in the passion of lust’, skalkinassaus jukuzja (Gal 5:1) ‘with the yoke of bondage’,7
skūra windis (Mk 4:37, Lk 8:23) [squall of wind] ‘gale-force’, kuni nadre (Lk 3:7) ‘brood
of vipers’, haurja funins (Rom 12:20A/C) ‘coals of fire’, silubris sikle ·m· (Neh 5:15) ‘forty
shekels of silver’, gahrainjands þwahla watins in waurda (Eph 5:26A) ‘cleansing (it)
with a washing by (lit. of) water in the word’. This example belongs here only if ‘water’
is intended as the specific type of washing.
Although (32) is unique, it seems to fit this category (cf. Karpov 2005a: 161).
(32) hlaibans faurlageinais matida (Mk 2:26)
loaf.acc.pl display.gen.sg eat.3sg.pret
‘he ate the loaves of display’
The ‘loaves of display’ (also Lk 6:4) are consecrated to God. They are variously
rendered ‘the showbread’, ‘the loaves set forth (before God)’, ‘the bread of the pres-
ence’, etc. Goth. faurlageinais (2x) ‘a laying before’ is a formal and syntactic calque on
Gk. prothéseōs, genitive of próthesis ‘a setting before, display’. The genitive suggests
that the items displayed for God are a special subclass of loaves.
As an extension, the genitive designates the specific type of entity designated by any
head noun of which it is not a subclass, e.g. bokos afsateinais (Mk 10:4) ‘papers of
divorce’ (Gk. biblíon apostasíou ‘booklet of divorce’), afstassais bokos (Mt 5:31) ‘id.’
(Gk. apostásion ‘divorce (bill)’ Pausch 1954: 41f.) but Lat. libellum repudiī ‘booklet
of divorce’; see Marold 1881a: 155f.), bi muna wiljins seinis (Eph 1:11A/B) ‘according
to the plan/design of his will’, in ahmin qairreins (Gal 6:1A/B) ‘in the spirit of
meekness’, in snutrein waurdis (1Cor 1:17A) ‘in the cleverness of the word’, gaman
ahmins weihis (2Cor 13:13A/B) ‘the fellowship of the holy spirit’, skildu galaubeinais
(Eph 6:16A/B) ‘the shield of faith’, brunjon garaihteins (Eph 6:14A/B) ‘the breastplate
of righteousness’, hilm naseinais (Eph 6:17A/B) ‘the helmet of salvation’ (cf. Karpov
2005a: 210).
The genitive is used of items in a physical or metaphorical container, e.g. stikla watins
(Mk 9:41) ‘(with) a cup of water’, stikla kaldis watins (Mt 10:42) ‘a cup of cold water’,
7 The relationship of the genitives to the head noun in this and the previous example is not one of
synonymy (pace GCS 160f.). Lust, for instance, is a type of passion, but not all passions involve lust.
4.12–29 Genitive 117
kas watins (Mk 14:13) ‘a jar of water’, alabalstraun balsanis (Lk 7:37) ‘an alabaster
jar of perfume’, a os . . . watins libandins (Jn 7:38) ‘rivers of living water’, akrs bloþis
(Mt 27:8) ‘field of blood’.
Some of these examples have been included under the rubric genitive of material
(e.g. GCS 131), but none of them denotes material composition. Instead of a genitive
of material, Gothic uses adjectives of material (§8.26) and prepositional constructs, as
in wipja* <wippja> us þaurnum (Jn 19:2) ‘crown (made) out of thorns’.
The conceptual opposite of the genitive of contents is the genitive of the container,
e.g. sokareis þis aiwis (1Cor 1:20A) ‘debater/logician of this era’.
Sometimes included as a genitive of quality is the type leika wulþaus seinis (Phil 3:21A)
‘his body of glory’, a direct calque on the Gk. s mati tẽs dóxēs autoũ ‘id.’, an idiom
meaning ‘his glorious body’. Similar examples in the rest of Germanic appear to be
Vulgate-influenced (Anderson 1938: 137, w. lit).
In this citation of Ps. 44:22 (cf. Mühlau 1904: 10), both the Greek and Latin texts exhibit
the same borrowed use of the genitive: sphagẽs, occīsiōnis. Additional examples follow.
(37) stain bistuggqis jah hallu gamarzeinais (Rom 9:33A)
stone.acc stumbling.gen.sg and rock.acc impeding.gen.sg
‘a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that impedes them’
[Gk. líthon proskómmatos kaì pétrān skandálou,
Lat. lapidem offēnsiōnis et petram scandalī ‘id.’]
This passage is lifted from Isaiah 8:14, for which ‘stone of impeding’ is continued in
Modern Hebrew as an idiom for ‘stumbling block’ (Galia Hatav, p.c.).
(38) daupein idreigos (Mk 1:4, Lk 3:3)
baptism.acc.sg.f repentance.gen.sg.f
‘baptism of (i.e. entailing) repentance’
[Gk. báptisma metanoíās, Lat. baptismum paenitentiae ‘id.’
(cf. VL 1970: 1, 1976: 28)]
8 My genitive of fate is named after the Icelandic ‘fate accusatives’ (Miller 2010: ii. 148, w. lit). It is a
Hebraism (Van der Meer 1901: 151, w. lit). A noun in the construct state plus one in the absolute state can
designate an inescapable event. With (39), cf. Hebr. ben māwet (1Samuel 20:31) ‘son of death’, bǝnê māwet
(1Samuel 26:16) ‘sons of death’, i.e. ‘fated to death, to be executed’ (Galia Hatav, p.c.; cf. Piras 2009: 178f.).
Related is the type leika dauþaus (Rom 7:24A) ‘body of death’ = ‘mortal body’ (ibid. 175).
There is nothing precisely like this in the IE languages. Thanks to Heinrich Hettrich for discussion of
this section. Assuming with Van der Meer and others that a calque must be internally motivated, it is
reasonable to look for similar structures. Hittite attests a genitive of the verbal noun, which can express
possibility or obligation, but not inescapability (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 256; Craig Melchert, p.c.). Latin
has a genitive of penalty, e.g. capitis condemnāre [head.gen condemn.inf] ‘condemn to capital punish-
ment’ (Phil Baldi, p.c.), but even (40) with reus would in Classical Latin have meant ‘charged (with), on
trial (for)’ (Woodcock 1958: 56f.), not the same as inescapability. Whether all the examples cited under
this rubric are properly classified is contingent on their interpretation by Biblical scholars.
4.12–29 Genitive 119
Participles of us-fulljan ‘fill up’ and ufar-fulljan* ‘overfill’ co-occur in (43) with
genitive complements.
(43) usfulliþs im gaþlaihtais, ufarfulliþs im fahedais (2Cor 7:4A/B)
‘I am/have been filled with comfort,
I am/have been overfilled with joy’ (tr. Katz 2016: 233)
Adverbs can pattern with the adjectives from which they are derived, e.g. wairþaba:
ei gaggaiþ wairþaba fraujins (Col 1:10B) ‘that you may walk worthily of the Lord’,
unwairþaba fraujins (1Cor 11:27A) ‘unworthily of the Lord’ (Schrader 1874: 30).
The satellite to words designating time is typically in the genitive; cf. mel smakkane
(Mk 11:13) [time of figs] ‘the season for figs’, mela gabaurþais seinaizos (Mk 6:21) [at the
time of his birth] ‘on his birthday’, jer fraujins (Lk 4:19) ‘year of the Lord’, eilai
nahtamatis (Lk 14:17) ‘at the hour of supper’, dagos hraineinais ize (Lk 2:22) ‘the days
of their purification’, etc. (Karpov 2005a: 118f.).
4.12–29 Genitive 121
For the genitive of time, cf. gistradagis (Mt 6:30) ‘tomorrow’, nahts (Lk 2:8, 1Thess
5:5, 7B) ‘at night’ (LIPP 1.62, 2.575), framwairþis (2Tim 3:13A/B) ‘onward, forward’,
framwigis (Jn 6:34, 1Thess 4:17B) ‘evermore’ (Gk. pántote ‘id.’) (GrGS 240; Schrader
1874: 55f.; Winkler 1896: 354f.; Wilmanns 1896: 612). Dagis izuh (Neh 5:18) ‘each day’
(Gk. eis hēmérān ‘daily’) is not standard NT use (Ohrloff 1876: 96; cf. §4.37).
For inwisandin(s) sabbate dagis (Mk 16:1) [Gk. diagenoménou toũ sabbátou ‘when
the sabbath was over’], often construed as an otherwise nonexistent genitive absolute
(e.g. Curme 1911: 374ff.; Metlen 1938: 634f.; Werth 1965: 91; Durante 1969: 169), Grimm
(1837: 896) took the participle as attributive in a gen of time (‘am Vorsabbat’); cf. Lechner
(1847: ii), Gabelentz & Löbe (1846: 241; 1848: 581) ‘īnstante diē’ [(on) the day at hand
(of the sabbaths)] in accord with Lk 23:56 and 24:1, the plural sabbate referring to
preceding and subsequent sabbaths.10 Schrader (1874: 57f.) denies a gen abs but offers
9 English of in this use is a functional item with no semantic content that introduces nominal apposition
(Anderson 2006: 244, w. lit).
10 Apart from gen sg sabbataus (Lk 18:12), which is a genitive of time, probably calqued on Gk.
sabbátou (Streitberg 1912: 325), sabbato ‘sabbath’ is plural except when undeclined (Börner 1859: 10;
Schulze 1905: 744ff.). The singular is undeclined in Mark and John (cf. Elis 1903: 36). The source can be
Greek or Vulgar Latin sabbato (Lühr 1985: 145, w. lit).
122 Case functions
no solution. Many agree on ‘imminente sabbatī diē’ [the sabbath day being at hand]
(e.g. Lücke 1876: 25; Winkler 1896: 355f.; Curme 1911: 374ff.).
The genitive of direction involves the goal of motion (Schrader 1874: 57; Bernhardt
1880: 74ff.; Delbrück 1907: 219; Van der Meer 1916), e.g. gaggida landis (Lk 19:12) ‘he
went to a (foreign) land, over land, far away’, usleiþam jainis stadis (Mk 4:35) ‘let us go
over to the other side’.11 See (44) and (45).
(44) in-sandida ina haiþjos seinaizos (Lk 15:15)
in-send.3sg.pret he.acc.sg field.gen.sg refl:gen.sg.f
‘sent him into his fields’
[Gk. eis toùs agroús (acc) ‘into the fields’]
(45) galeiþands Makedonais (1Tim 1:3A)
going.nom.sg.m Macedonia.gen.sg
‘going (in)to Macedonia’
[Gk. eis Makedoníān (acc) ‘into Macedonia’]
This construction was no longer productive and competes with in + acc: galeiþan in
Makidonja (2Cor 1:16B ~ Makaidonja A) ‘to go (in)to Macedonia’, galaiþ in Makaidonja
(2Cor 2:13A ~ Makidonja B) ‘I went into Macedonia’ (cf. Van der Meer 1916).
The adverbial genitive is residual (cf. Winkler 1896: 356–9; GCS 171f.). One place is
in calcified adverbs like allis (3x) ‘at all’, e.g. ni swaran allis (Mt 5:34) ‘do not swear at
all’ (Delbrück 1907: 224). Allis is also a conjunction (23x, 1 dupl) ‘for, indeed, surely’
(Gk. gár), e.g. raþizo allis ist (Lk 18:25) ‘for surely it is easier’, and renders the Greek
contrastive focus particle mén: ik allis izwis watin daupja (Lk 3:16) ‘as for me, I baptize
you (only) with water’ (Schwahn 1873: 4f.; Marold 1881b: 22ff.; Rousseau 2012: 222).
There is also the conjunction raihtis ‘certainly’ (clause-initial Rom 10:18A),
‘truly, indeed, for’ (enclitic), e.g. qam raihtis Iohannes (Mt 11:18) ‘for John came’; with
iþ ‘but’ raihtis is a contrastive focus particle (Gk. mén), as in asans raihtis managa, iþ
waurstwjans fawai (Mt 9:37) ‘the harvest is plentiful, but the workers few’. See Schwahn
(1873: 7ff.), Marold (1881b: 24ff.), Schaaffs (1904: 76f.), Rousseau (2012: 221f.).
The genitive in Serena’s racket has meaning that is not present in Serena’s win at
Wimbledon. The first can be paraphrased by a verb of ownership or appurtenance, the
11 Peeters (1974c) denies a genitive of direction, but his genitive of place is no better motivated
(see §4.20), and Werth (1965: 88) emphasizes that this use of the genitive translates Gk. eis ‘into’.
4.12–29 Genitive 123
This is a word-for-word rendering of the Greek text, which is also imitated in Lat.
in rēgnum fīliī dīlēctiōnis suae ‘id. ’.
Objective genitives in a nominalization correspond to a direct object in an
active, transitive clause, e.g. nutans manne (Mk 1:17) ‘catchers of men’, libainais
aiweinons arbja (Mk 10:17, Lk 10:25, 18:18) ‘inheritor of life everlasting’, airþos
waurstwja (2Tim 2:6B) ‘worker of the earth’ (farmer), dulgis skulans (Lk 7:41)
‘owers of debt’, þairh barne gabaurþ (1Tim 2:15A/B) ‘through the birthing of chil-
dren’, laisareis þiudo (1Tim 2:7A/B, 2Tim 1:11A/B) ‘teacher of the nations (Gentiles)’,
in gafāhis þize fiske (Lk 5:9) ‘at the catch of those fish’, etc. (GrGS 213; cf. Karpov
2005a: 85, 113f., 116f.).
The following examples contain multiple objective genitives:
(47) daupeinins stikle jah aurkje jah katile jah ligre (Mk 7:4)
‘the washing of drinking horns and pitchers and copper kettles and couches’
(48) af allamma bisauleino leikis jah ahmins (2Cor 7:1A)
from all.dat.sg.n defilement.gen.pl body.gen.sg and soul.gen.sg
‘from all defilements of the body and soul’
Leikis and ahmins are objective, because the corresponding clause would involve
everything that defiles the body and soul.
Also objective is anstais, the grace that is being dispensed, in (49).
124 Case functions
With first and second person pronouns, an objective genitive has the adjectival form:
(50) du timreinai jah ni du gataurþai izwarai
for building.dat and neg for tearing.down:dat.sg.f your.dat.sg.f
‘for edification and not for your destruction’ (i.e. ‘tearing you down’) (2Cor 10:8B)
Another example is du unsarai laiseinai gameliþ warþ (Rom 15:4C) ‘was written for
our teaching’, i.e. ‘for teaching us’.
Example (51) contains both a subjective and objective genitive (cf. §11.10).
(51) iþ fraujins · at afleta | frawaurhte (Sk 3.3.19f.)
‘but lord.gen.sg at forgiveness sin.gen.pl
‘but at (accompanying) the Lord’s forgiveness of sins’
12 More technically, the partitive indicates unboundedness, determined by the interaction of the verb
and its object: “A VP predicate is unbounded if it has either an unbounded head, or an unbounded argu-
ment” (Kiparsky 1998: 285). The object of an unbounded VP is partitive (ibid. 286). One test is the absence
of a change of state in contrast to the accusative, which may indicate a change of state (cf. Butt 2006: 192).
4.12–29 Genitive 125
The partitive adverbal genitive is native Gothic. For (52) Greek uses a PP ek toútou toũ
ártou ‘from this bread’ (Lat. ex hōc pāne ‘id.’). Except in partitive contexts, NP comple-
ments of matjan ‘eat’ and drigkan ‘drink’ are accusative.
Niman ‘take, receive’ takes accusative complements except in a partitive; cf. (54).
(54) ei . . . nemi akranis þis weinagardis (Mk 12:2)
comp take.3sg.pret.opt fruit.gen.sg D.gen.sg.m vineyard.gen.sg.m
‘that he might collect (a share) of the fruit of the vineyard’
The Greek text uses a P: apò toũ karpoũ ‘from/of the fruit’ (Lat. dē frūctū ‘id.’).
Giban ‘give’ has accusative complements except with the kind of partitive (55) for
which the Greek and Latin texts have the same as above.
(55) ei akranis þis weinagardis gebe(i)na imma
comp fruit.gen.sg D.gen vineyard.gen give.3pl.pret.opt he.dat.sg
‘that they should give him some of the fruit of the vineyard’ (Lk 20:10)
The adjectival numerals ains ‘one; a certain’ (actual, not possible, entity) and twai
‘two’ (§3.11) can be attributive or take a partitive construction, e.g. ains ize (Mt 10:29)
‘one of them’, ains izwara (Jn 13:21) ‘one of you’, insandida twans siponje seinaize
(Mk 11:1) ‘he sent two of his disciples’.
Ains sums [one some] ‘one, a certain (one)’ occurs two times, once attributively and
once with a partitive construction: ains sums juggalauþs laistida afar imma (Mk 14:51)
‘a certain young man followed after him’, ains sums þize atstandandane (Mk 14:47)
‘some one of those standing by’.
In the attributive use, ains can also mean ‘alone’, e.g. ni bi hlaib ainana libaid manna
(Lk 4:4) ‘not by bread alone man lives’. Note the idiomatic rodida sis ains (Lk 7:39)
‘alonei (hei) spoke to himself ’, different from Gk. eĩpen en heautõi ‘he spoke/said
within himself ’ (Sturtevant 1947b: 411f.), Lat. ait intrā sē ‘id.’, dīxit apud sēmetipsum
‘id.’, etc. (VL 1976: 80).
13 Numerals with tigjus* take the genitive in the religious texts, but the other documents have skilliggans
.j. ‘60 gold pieces’, skillingans .rk. ‘120’ (Naples), skilliggans .rlg. ‘133’ (Arezzo).
126 Case functions
Þreis* (23x, 3 dupl) ‘three’ never takes a partitive; cf. attributive gawaurk-
jaima hleiþros þrins (Lk 9:33) ‘let us make three shelters/huts’ (Ebbinghaus
1976b: 355).
Nouns like managei ‘crowd’ take a partitive genitive, as in (57), where manageins is
partitive with filu and Iudaie is partitive with manageins.
(57) manageins filu Iudaie (Jn 12:9)
crowd.gen.sg much Jew.gen.pl
‘a large crowd of Jews’ (lit. ‘much of a crowd of Jews’)
Halbs* (2x) ‘half ’ is attested in both constructions: partitive, halbata aiginis meinis
(Lk 19:8) ‘half of my possessions’; attributive, und halba þiudangardja meina (Mk 6:23)
‘up to half of my kingdom’.
For other quantifying adjectives, note leitil with genitive beside attributive all-:
(59) leitil beistis allana daig gabeisteiþ
little.nom.sg.n yeast.gen.sg.n all.acc.sg.m dough.acc.sg.m leaven.3sg
‘a little yeast leavens all the dough’ (1Cor 5:6A)
Faus* ‘few’ is not attested with a partitive construction. For the attributive use,
cf. habaidedun fiskans fawans (Mk 8:7) ‘they had a few fish(es)’, niba fawaim siukaim
handuns galagjands (Mk 6:5) ‘except laying hands on a few sick (people)’.
Ratkus (2011: 133ff.) counts 86 examples of quantifiers in attributive use, and 109 as
neuters.
Comparatives and superlatives that quantify assume the gender of the quantified
word (60) (Schrader 1874: 24–7; Wagner 1909: 36ff., 52f.), as do the pronominal adjec-
tives in (61) and (62) (Winkler 1896: 321ff.; GCS 127–30).
4.12–29 Genitive 127
Sum- with the partitive genitive is used of an existing individual or entity ‘(some)one,
(a) certain’ (Behaghel 1917; Bech 1952). Example (62) is especially interesting because
the Greek and Latin versions (VL 1963: 109) have no quantifying pronominal or adjec-
tive at all, just a quantified expression with a preposition (cf. Bernhardt 1882: 7).
Gothic also knows the Greek bare prepositional construction:
(63) qeþun us þaim siponjam (is) du sis
say.3pl.pret from D.dat.pl.m disciple.dat.pl (his) to refl:dat.pl
misso (Jn 16:17)
recip
‘(some) of his disciples said to one another’
[Gk. eĩpon . . . ek tõn mathētõn . . . , Lat. dīxērunt . . . ex discipulīs eius . . . ‘id.’]
14 Exceptions occur when the partitive is separated from the pronoun, e.g. a taujis þu taikne (Jn 6:30)
‘what will you show us of signs?’ (i.e. ‘what sign will you show us?’) with taikns (f -i-) ‘sign’, etc. (Sturtevant
1947b: 408; Matzel 1982/83: 124; see also §4.3).
128 Case functions
The partitive in this construction is likely native Gothic, because it does not occur in
the Greek, Vulgate, or Vetus Latina manuscripts (cf. VL 1972: 27, 1976: 215). In all of
these the quantifying word modifies the quantified adjectivally or, in the case of (64),
appositionally. Most of the pre-Vulgate versions have nēmō prophēta (VL 1976: 42),
literally ‘no one (who is a) prophet’.
In partitive constructions, the pronominal genitive, not the possessive adjective, is
used, e.g. as izwara (Jn 8:46+) ‘who of you?’, ains izwara (Jn 13:21) ‘one of you’,
arjizuh izwara (Lk 14:33+) ‘each of you’, etc. (Schrader 1874: 21).
The adverbal type is exemplified by the following (GrGS 227f.; Bernhardt 1870b: 293;
1882: 13; Schaubach 1879: 7):
(70) ni was im barne (Lk 1:7)
neg was they.dat child.gen.pl
‘they had no children’ (lit. ‘there was not to them of children’)
4.12–29 Genitive 129
The switch in (74) from a dative complement (qenai) to genitive (barne) as a result of
the negation is especially instructive. Nothing like that obtains in the extant Greek or
Latin versions.
The partitive with negation is shared with Slavic and Baltic15 but alien to Greek and
Latin, where the closest construction is a partitive with words meaning ‘nothing’ and
the like. In (73), Gk. tópos ‘place’ and Lat. locus ‘id.’ are in the nominative. Goth. staþs
‘place’ rather than a word for ‘inn’ may have been suggested by the general lack of
‘space’ (Wolfe 2018b). Note that both halves of (73) contain five syllables each.
In Gothic this construction is variable, and the accusative is frequent (cf. GE 177f.),
especially with ni haban (GrGS 228; Mossé 1956: 166), as in (75).
(75) hlaibans ni habaiþ (Mk 8:17)
loaf.acc.pl neg have.2pl
‘you do not have bread’
It is sometimes stated (e.g. GE 178) that fraisan* ‘test, tempt’ takes genitive comple-
ments, but in fact it takes accusative, e.g. a mik fraisiþ (Mk 12:15, Lk 20:23) ‘why are
you testing/tempting me?’, fraisands ina (Lk 10:25, Jn 6:6) ‘testing him’. There is only
one example with a genitive complement, and that is in a negated sentence:
(76) ei ni fraisai izwara Satana (1Cor 7:5A)
comp neg tempt.3sg.opt you.gen.pl Satan.nom
‘lest Satan tempt you’
Even that may be idiosyncratic, given the accusative in ni fraisais fraujan guþ þeinana
(Lk 4:12) ‘you should not test/tempt the lord your God’.
Several verbs have a genitive case feature realized on their complement. The genitive
with some verbs is related to the partitive genitive. Hettrich (2014) divides Vedic verbs
with genitive into several macrogroups. Group 1 is partitive, in which the thematic
object is quantified or unbounded, or the event is quantified. These verbs include
nourishing, consuming, and giving. With Group 2 (mental activity and ruling) the
event can be quantified or the object affected to different degrees. Ambiguous are verbs
of begging or striving for with some partitive properties, and being glad of (usually
considered Group 2). In Gothic, genitive complements are semantically like the geni-
tive with adjectives (§4.19). An attempt is made by Haspelmath & Michaelis (2008)
to make (most) genitive objects a background theme, which is a discourse, not
a grammatical property.
Similar to Finnish, where unbounded verbs denoting psychological states (desire,
lust after, remember) and intent (ask for, await) take partitive case (Kiparsky 1998), in
Gothic they take the genitive.
Following is a partial list of verbs with genitive complements (more in §4.54).
For details, see Schrader (1874: 33–50), Balg (1891: 235–8), Winkler (1896: 329–42),
Delbrück (1907: 206–10).
At-sai an* (9x, 2 dupl) ‘watch (out)’ can take a variety of complements, one of
which is faura ‘for’, another is accusative: at-sai ands þik silban (Gal 6:1B) ‘watching
yourself, keeping a watchful eye on yourself ’. In the sense of ‘give importance to’,
a genitive complement is found:
(77) niþ þan at-saiƕaina spille jah gabaurþiwaurde (1Tim 1:4A/B)
‘nor should they heed myths and genealogies’
(78) at-saiƕandans ahmane airziþos (1Tim 4:1A/B)
‘paying attention to spirits of deception’
This is supposedly a Hellenism (Velten 1930: 497), but both the Greek and the Latin
texts construe the corresponding verb with the dative case. Rather, the genitive signals
an unbounded event, while the verb with accusative object is bounded.
Beidan* (8x) ‘await, expect’ takes genitive complements, e.g. ainaizos anabusnais
beidiþ (Sk 5.1.3ff.) ‘he expects a single command’ (cf. §5.5).
Bi-sai an* (5x) ‘look around, see through’ takes an accusative complement in
bi-sai ands alla (Mk 11:11) ‘looking around at everything’ and bi-sai ands . . . ize unse-
lein (Lk 20:23) ‘seeing through their trickery’. In its only occurrence in the sense of
‘provide’, it takes a partitive genitive: bi-sai andans godis (Rom 12:17A) ‘providing
4.12–29 Genitive 131
good’. The meaning of the verb may be suggested by the Gk. pro-nooúmenoi kalá or
Vulg. prō-videntēs bona, but both of those have an accusative object.
Brūkjan in the meaning ‘share (in)’ takes a quantified genitive complement: ainis
hlaibis jah ainis stiklis brūkjam (1Cor 10:17A) ‘we share the one loaf of bread and the
one drinking horn’. Note also the impersonal passive in the meaning ‘use (in part)’:
(79) þatei ist all du riurein, þairh þatei is brūkjaidau
which is all to corruption.dat through comp it.gen use.3sg.opt.pass
‘which is all to perish through (the fact) that use will be made of it’ (Col 2:22A/B)
Fair-aihan ‘take part in, share in’ in its only attestation takes a complement in the
genitive by quantification of the event (base verb ‘have, own’):
(80) ni maguþ biudis fraujins fairaihan (1Cor 10:21A)
neg can.2pl table.gen lord.gen partake.inf
‘you cannot partake of the table of the Lord’
Greek also uses the genitive with the corresponding verb: trapézēs kūríou metékhein
‘to share in the Lord’s table’.
Freidjan* (6x, 3 dupl; only Cor, Rom) ‘spare’ normally has acc objects (e.g. ni þuk
freidjai Rom 11:21A ‘he will not spare you’) but 1x gen: freidjands izwara (2Cor
1:23A/B) ‘sparing you’.
Ga-fāhan (16x, 6 dupl) in the sense of ‘grasp at, object to’ (§5.11) takes gen comple-
ments, e.g. ni mahtedun ga-fāhan is waurde (Lk 20:26) ‘they could not catch him on
his words’, i.e. catch him on anything objectionable he said, a word-for-word render-
ing of Gk. epi-labésthai autoũ [‘his’ gen] rh matos [‘word’ gen]; cf. reprehendere ‘catch
hold of; censure, rebuke’) in many Latin versions (VL 1976: 226).
Gairnjan* ‘desire’ involves an unbounded event, which triggers genitive case:
(81) Jabai ƕas aipiskaupeins gairneiþ, godis waurstwis gairneiþ (1Tim 3:1A)
‘if anyone desires a bishopric, he desires good work’
[Gk. eí tis episkopẽs (gen) orégetai, kaloũ érgou (gen) epithūmeĩ ]
For gairnjands was allaize (gen) izwara (gen) (Phil 2:26B) ‘he continually longed for
all of you’, the Greek text has an accusative object: epipothõn ẽn pántas (acc) hūmãs
(acc) ‘id.’, and a number of manuscripts (not the Byzantine main text) insert ideĩn
‘to see’, i.e. ‘longing to see all of you’. Infinitival complements are also common with
gairnjan, e.g. gairnjands þuk gasai an (2Tim 1:4A) ‘longing to see you’ = Gk. epipothõn
se ideĩn ‘id. ’.
Gamunan (21x, 3 dupl) ‘remember‘ as a mental activity regularly takes the genitive:
(82) gamunan triggwos weihaizos seinaizos (Lk 1:72)
remember.inf covenant.gen.sg holy.gen.sg.f refl:gen.sg.f
‘to remember his holy covenant’
132 Case functions
The accusative occurs one time with this verb: gamunda Paitrus þata waurd (Mk 14:72)
‘Peter remembered that word’, beside the genitive: gamunda Paitrus waurdis Iesuis
(Mt 26:75+C) ‘Peter remembered Jesus’ word’. Gamunan also takes ‘that’ clauses and
accusative and participle (§9.23).
Ga-þarban (2x, 1 dupl) ‘abstain’ takes an ablatival genitive: gaþarban mate (1Tim
4:3A) ‘to abstain from (certain) foods’.
Ga-weison* (5x) ‘visit’ has genitival NP complements triggered by quantification of
the event: ga-weisoþ unsara (Lk 1:78) ‘visits us’, ga-weisoda guþ manageins seinaizos
(Lk 7:16) ‘God visited his people’, ni ga-weisodeduþ meina (Mt 25:43C) ‘you did not
visit me’. The thematic object appears as nominative subject in a passive sentence:
(83) ga-weis-o-dai waurþun daurawaurdos (Neh 7:1)
prfx-visit-wk2-PPP.nom.pl.m become.3pl.pret doorguard.nom.pl
‘gatekeepers were appointed’
An extension from genitival objects is possible (Vogel 2000: 14, w. lit). However,
since the meaning is very different, it is plausible that ga-weison* has an otherwise
unattested meaning ‘choose, appoint’, which in an active sentence would take
accusative objects.
Greipan (4x) ‘seize’ takes a genitive once: gripun is þai juggalaudeis (Mk 14:51)
‘the young men seized him’. The Greek text has accusative: kratoũsin autón ‘they over-
power him’. The Gothic genitive is remarkable because the other three occurrences
of this verb have accusative objects clustered at Mk 14:44, 48, 49.
Hilpan ‘help’ has its limitedly affected DP complements only in the genitive, e.g.
hilpan ize (Lk 5:7) ‘to help them’, hilp unsara (Mk 9:22) ‘help us’, hilp meinaizos
ungalaubeinais (Mk 9:24) ‘help my unbelief ’, f(rauj)a hilp skalkis þei [nis] ‘Lord,
help your servant’ (Crimean graffiti, Korobov & Vinogradov 2016: 150). The
same is true of ga-hilpan in its sole occurrence: gahalp þeina (2Cor 6:2A/B)
‘I helped you’.
Kausjan (7x, 2 dupl) ‘taste’ is claimed to take a partitive genitive (e.g. Winkler 1896:
328) but both of the examples (nahtamatis Lk 14:24 ‘dinner’, ni kausjand dauþaus
Mk 9:1 ‘they will not taste death’) are in negated sentences, both with a partitive geni-
tive in Greek. Otherwise kausjan takes dat even in negative clauses, where Greek also
has gen: ni kausjand dauþau (Lk 9:27) ‘they will not taste death’, ni kausjai dauþau
(Jn 8:52) ‘he shall not taste death’. In the sense of ‘examine, test’ (Gk. dokimázein) it
takes acc: silbans izwis kauseiþ (2Cor 13:5A/B) ‘examine yourselves’, gagga kausjan
þans (Lk 14:19) ‘I am going to try them [the oxen] out’.
Luston* (1x) ‘lust after’ takes a genitive complement: saei sai iþ qinon du luston izos
(Mt 5:28) ‘he who looks at a woman to lust after her’. The event is unbounded.
Niutan (2x) ‘gain benefit of ’: þaiei wairþai sind jainis aiwis niutan jah usstassais
(Lk 20:35) ‘they who are worthy to gain the benefit of that (distant) world and resur-
rection’, ik þeina niutau (Philem 20) ‘let me gain the benefit of you’.
Þaurban* (19x, 2 dupl) ‘need’ takes genitive complements, e.g. a þanamais þaurbum
weis weitwode (Mk 14:63) ‘why do we still need witnesses?’, ibai þaurbum . . . anafilhis
4.30–43 Dative 133
boko (2Cor 3:1A/B) ‘do we need letters of commendation?’. Many examples are
negated, e.g. þeina ni þarf (1Cor 12:21A) ‘I don’t need you’.
Wopjan ‘cry out; call, summon’ normally takes accusative complements, e.g. wopeiþ
þuk (Mk 10:49) ‘he’s calling you’, but in one passage the event is unbounded ‘call to’
and takes the genitive: wopjandam seina misso (Lk 7:32) ‘(like children) calling to one
another’. This is different from the absolute use of wopjan ‘cry out’ with du ‘to’: þans
wopjandans du sis (Lk 18:7) ‘those crying out to him’.
To conclude this section, genitive complements are motivated by quantification
(or affectedness) of the DP, or the unboundedness of the event.
4.30 Dative
In the earliest Indo-European languages the dative has two prototypical functions. With
animate nouns, it designates an individual that receives or possesses something, the
intended recipient (e.g. make something for someone), also called ‘destinative dative’
(e.g. Hettrich 2007), and direct recipient, traditionally referred to as the ‘indirect object’.
It can also be benefactive or malefactive. With event nominals, it denotes a goal (dativus
finalis), i.e. an intent, or purpose (Luraghi 2003: 46; Meier-Brügger 2010: 406f.).
Since in Gothic the dative also conflates the instrumental, ablative, and locative, it
has many other functions (Grimm 1837: 683f.; Köhler 1864).
The instrumental in Indo-European could be used of people or things. The former
involves an actant that executes or helps execute the action. Later it has a sociative
function. Related to accompaniment is the concept of accompanying circumstances
and the ornative function (Stolz et al. 2006: 34), e.g. a table with a broken leg. With
inanimate objects, it also designates means, and with places the route or path. It is also
used of a reason (‘for fear, joy’) and the respect or reference to which a comparison
holds, e.g. ‘wider in the shoulders’ (Meier-Brügger 2010: 404ff.). Instrument and means
are expressed by the dative alone, without a preposition.
The ablative prototypically indicates source or origin, hence separation, motion
away from an object, then in comparisons the object from which a compared entity
differs (Meier-Brügger 2010: 407).
The locative prototypically indicates location in space or time. There is also a modal
and circumstantial locative (‘amazed at something’). The locative could also indicate
goal (Meier-Brügger 2010: 408ff.).
The fact that Indo-European had a locative absolute, attested in Sanskrit (see Keydana
1997: 101; Hettrich 2007), raises the possibility that the dative absolute in Gothic,
together with its locatival extension with at in (84), has a claim to historicity (§9.15).
134 Case functions
Old Norse attests the same construction with at. For instance, ON at upprennandi sólu
‘when the sun is rising’ is comparable to Goth. at urrinnandin sunnin (Mk 16:2) ‘at the
rising of the sun’ (Eythórsson 1995: 159ff.).
Example (85) is perhaps better analyzed as an extension of the instrumental of
attendant circumstance, as in praufetjands gahulidamma haubida (1Cor 11:4A) ‘proph-
esying (with) head covered’.
(85) sitandin þan imma ana stauastola (Mt 27:19)
sitting.dat.sg then he.dat.sg on judge.seat
‘(with) him then sitting on the judge’s seat’
The syncretism of so many cases into the dative in Gothic doubtless contributed to
productivity of the dative absolute over other absolute structures.
The linearization in B correlates with the pre-Vulgate versions (Marold 1881a: 138).
(89) ei nimai broþar is þo qen is jah us-satjai barna broþr seinamma (Mk 12:19)
‘that his brother should take his wife and raise children for his brother’
[Gk. hína lábēi ho adelphòs autoũ t n gunaĩka autoũ kaì exanast sēi spérma tõi
adelphõi autoũ
‘that his brother should take his wife and raise up seed for his (dead) brother’]
The dative is used to mark the point of view of a speech-act participant. There are
many subclasses of this function, and the boundaries are fuzzy at best.
One subclass is the so-called dativus iudicantis, the individual from whose perspective
the content of a clause is viewed (Pinkster 2015: 927); cf. (90).
(90) allai auk imma liband (Lk 20:38)
all.nom.pl for he.dat.sg live.3pl
‘to him, all are alive’ (i.e. ‘all are alive, as far as he is concerned’)
Another subclass is the dativus ethicus ‘ethical dative’, “a marker of speech partici-
pants (first and second person) to indicate the relevance or importance of an event or
136 Case functions
situation for either the speaker or the addressee . . . Semantically the dative constituent
is an experiencer on the level of the utterance” (Pinkster: 2015: 931).
Fra-waurkjan* (16x [incl Bl 2r.20 frawaur[k]jai], 3 dupl) ‘(commit a) sin’ takes
no complements, and is accompanied by a dative adjunct only in the first person,
frawaurhta mis (Mt 27:4, Lk 15:18) ‘I have sinned’. The effect of the ethical dative is ‘in
my view, I have sinned’, ‘I’m afraid I have sinned’, or the like (cf. GCS 85f.). Delbrück
(1907: 126) calls it ‘dative of the interested person’.
The boundary between dative of interest and ethical dative is fuzzy. Consider (91)
with at-sai an* (9x, 2 dupl) ‘watch out (for)’, which otherwise is not accompanied by
a dative or a reflexive. Van der Meer (1901: 86) classifies it as an ethical dative.
(91) atsaiƕiþ izwis þis beistis (Jn 9:22)
watch.out:2pl you.dat.pl D.gen.sg.n leaven.gen.sg.n
‘beware of the leaven in your own interest’
Adjuncts to certain verbs are sometimes included here, e.g. ni ogs þus (Lk 5:10,
Jn 12:15) ‘do not be afraid for yourself ’, ni faurhteiþ izwis (Mk 16:6) ‘do not be alarmed’.
Contrast ni faurhtei (Mk 5:36, Lk 8:50) ‘don’t be afraid’, a faurhteiþ (Mt 8:26) ‘why
are you afraid’. The dative serves for subject focus (García García 2004: 326). Since the
optional dative is an adjunct, these are not double object verbs.
h) niu jūs mais wulþrizans sijuþ þaim (Mt 6:26) ‘are you not more valuable
than them?’
i) niu saiwala mais ist fodeinai jah leik wastjom (Mt 6:25) ‘is life not more
than food and the body (more) than clothes?’
j) swinþoza mis (Mk 1:7, Lk 3:16, Sk 3.4.16 [= Mt 3:11]) ‘mightier than me’
k) ibai swinþozans imma sium (1Cor 10:22A) ‘are we stronger than him?!’
l) wairsizei þizai frumein (Mt 27:64) ‘worse than the first’
For simple comparisons between two NPs the dative is the rule when the second
NP is the understood subject of a reduced clause (Harbert 2007: 174f.). To concretize,
(92b) can be paraphrased ‘greater than he is’. As in other Indo-European languages,
the case for the standard of comparison is subject to replacement by a comparative
conjunction, as Goth. þau ‘than’ (Small 1924: 101–5; Baldauf 1938: 23; Harbert 1978:
252–8):
(93) a) frijondans wiljan seinana mais þau guþ (2Tim 3:4A/B)
‘loving their own will/desire more than (they love) God’
b) frabugjan in managizo þau þrija hunda skatte (Mk 14:5)
‘to sell for more than three hundred denarii’
In (93a) guþ would be the direct object in the full sentence, and in (93b) a different
kind of dative, the dative of price (§4.40), would be involved.
Since IE languages do not admit case stacking, the comparative conjunction is
obligatory when nonsubject cases are involved (GrGS 244; Weihrich 1869: 40; Douse
1886: 225f.), as in (94).
The genitives bokarje and Fareisaie are in conflict with the dative of comparison,
entailing use of þau.
Clauses bear no morphological case in most IE languages, and clausal comparisons
require the comparative conjunction (Baldauf 1938: 22f.):
The literal meaning is something like ‘that there not get lost by anything’.17
Apart from comparatives, there are examples like (98); cf. Kapteijn (1911: 267, 337).
(98) fidwor tiguns ainamma wanans nam (2Cor 11:24B)
four tens one.dat.sg.m lacking.acc.pl.m take.1sg.pret
‘I received thirty-nine (lashes)’ (lit. four tens lacking by one)
[Gk. tessarakonta parà míān élabon ‘forty except one [acc] I took’, Lat.
quadrāgēnās, ūnā minus, accēpī ‘forty at a time, less by one [abl], I received’]
16 MS A has giban to be deleted before þau, and B has bidjan for bidjam.
17 Köhler (1864: 35) and Schulze (1909: 321) consider waihtai in þei waihtai ni fraqistnai (Jn 6:12) ‘lest
anything go to waste’ (from which (97) is quoted, though not precisely) to be a dative complement of
fraqistnan* preserved in an impersonal passive, but (i) fraqistnai is agentless and inchoative, not passive,
and (ii) elsewhere its subjects are nominative, e.g. ei fraqistnai ains liþiwe þeinaize (Mt 5:29, 30) ‘that one
part of your (body) get lost’.
4.30–43 Dative 139
The dative of degree with comparatives is a residue of the instrumental, but note the
competition with the adverbial genitive, which occurs only in frozen collocations like
filaus mais (3x) ‘much more’ (§3.6); cf. Sturtevant (1933b: 208), Anderson (1938: 132f.).
Instruments
Instrumental datives are frequent in Gothic (Winkler 1896: 108–11; GCS 107–11; Werth
1965: 86), e.g. siukans sauhtim missaleikam (Lk 4:40) ‘sick with various illnesses’,
hūhrau fraqistna (Lk 15:17) [I perish with hunger] ‘I’m dying of hunger’, inkilþo sunau
(Lk 1:36) ‘pregnant with a son’; cf. Luther schwanger mit einem Sohne (Schaubach
1879: 15).
Instrument and means are not discrete categories; cf. eisarnam . . . gabundans was
(Mk 5:4) ‘he was bound with irons’. Greek also has a dat halúsesin ‘with chains’. Most
Vet. Lat. MSS (VL 1970: 36) have an ablative of means/instrument.
In (99), fire and salt are logical instruments.
(99) ƕazuh auk funin saltada, jah ƕarjatoh
each.nom.sg.m for fire.dat.sg salt.3sg.pass and every.nom.sg.n
hunsle salta saltada (Mk 9:49)
sacrifice.gen.pl salt.dat.sg salt.3sg.pass
‘for each will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt’
[Gk. pãs gàr purì halisth setai, kaì pãsa thūsíā halì halisth setai]
Since the instrumental merged with the dative in Greek as well, purí ‘with fire’ and
halí ‘with salt’ are also dative.
Rignjan* (2x) ‘rain’ occurs with instrumental datives in rignida swibla jah funin
(Lk 17:29) ‘it rained (with) sulfur and fire’ (cf. Rousseau 2012: 192).
One of the tests for an instrument is substitution of ‘using’, e.g. lofam slohun ina
(Mk 14:65) ‘they struck him with (using) fists’, waurkjands swesaim handum þiuþ
(Eph 4:28A/B) ‘effecting good with (using) his very own hands’. In (100), ‘with many
parables’ can be paraphrased ‘using many parables’.
(100) swaleikaim managaim gajukom rodida du im þata waurd
such.dat.pl.f many.dat.pl.f parable.dat.pl spoke to them the word
‘with many such parables, (Jesus) spoke the word to them’ (Mk 4:33)
140 Case functions
Greek uses the accusative tríkhas ‘hairs’, and the Vulgate has an instrumental ablative
pīlīs ‘with hairs’. Most of the Vetus Latina manuscripts calque the Greek accusative of
respect, e.g. pīlōs ‘(with respect to) hairs’ (VL 1970: 1).
In a structure like (101) the Greek acc bússon (nom bússos ‘linen’) is lifted over as
indeclinable bwssaun: gawasids was paurpaurai jah bwssaun (Lk 16:19) ‘was clothed in
purple and fine linen’ (Börner 1859: 16; Schulze 1905: 738; Kluge 1911: 102). Another
passage has the instrumental dative in mannan hnasqjaim wastjom gawasidana
(Mt 11:8) ‘a man dressed in fine clothes’, where Greek has locational en ‘in’ (cf. Thomason
2011: 195). Gothic can also use the locatival expression: mannan in hnasqjaim wastjom
gawasidana (Lk 7:25) ‘a man dressed in fine clothes’.18
Means
Examples of the dative expressing the means by which an event is executed are
frequent in Gothic (GCS 105f.). In (102) Goth. þizaiei differs considerably from Gk. hó
‘which’ (acc), but in (103) hindarweisein and Gk. dólōi ‘by guile’ are both dative, as are
winda and Gk. anémōi ‘by wind’ in (104).
(102) daupeinai þizai-ei ik daupjada (Mk 10:38, 39)
baptism.dat.sg.f dat.sg.f-rel I baptize.1sg.pass
‘by the baptism by which I am baptized’
[Gk. tò báptisma hò eg baptízomai ‘the baptism that I get baptized’]
(103) wisands aufto listeigs hindarweisein izwis nam (2Cor 12:16A/B)
‘being indeed crafty, I took you by guile’
[Gk. all’ hupárkhōn panoũrgos, dólōi hūmãs élabon ‘id.’]
18 These are supposedly Hebraisms (Kauffmann 1920: 9, w. lit), but Blake (2004: 173) mentions
situations that allow a locative or instrumental interpretation, e.g. wash the cloth in/with water. Similarly,
one can baptize someone in or with water, which may explain the variation between aþþan ik in watin |
izwis daupja (Sk 3.4.13f.) ‘indeed I baptize you in water’ and ik allis izwis watin daupja (Lk 3:16) ‘indeed I
baptize you with water’. The Greek texts have P-less dat húdati ‘with water’. On the different linearization,
see Falluomini (2016a: 282). At Mk 1:8 in watin translates en húdati ‘in water’ (v.l. húdati ‘with water’) and
(iii) (97) is quoted (though not precisely) from Jn 6:12.
4.30–43 Dative 141
Cognate objects
Most cognate objects are in the accusative (§4.8). With intransitive and dative verbs
they are in the dative, e.g. andhaihaist þamma godin andahaita (1Tim 6:12A/B) ‘confess
the good confession’, dauþau af-dauþjaidau (Mk 7:10) lit. ‘he shall be caused to die
(by) a death’ (Lat. morte moriātur VL 1970: 61);20 cf. noncognate ileikamma dauþau
skulda ga-swiltan (Jn 18:32) ‘(by) what sort of death he was to die’. For rare overlap with
acc, cf. ohtedun agisa mikilamma (Lk 2:9) ‘they feared with great fear’ (§4.8; Zatočil
1964: 87). See also Piper (1874: 28). Gothic is unusual in not having all cognate objects
in the accusative (Horrocks & Stavrou 2010).
19 Usflaugidai (the accepted reading) is a slightly different image from Gk. peripherómenoi ‘carried
about’. As a causative formation like ON fleygja ‘make fly’ (Delbrück 1907: 30; GED 381; Bernharðsson
2001: 236f.; EDPG 145), Goth. -flaugjan* (1x) seems ideally suited to the shifting winds of doctrine.
20 The pass of afdauþjan (vs. inch gadauþnan) for Gk. act teleutátō ‘shall die’ insists on a prompt/
forced death (Marold 1882: 33f.), hence the term passivum iudicii [passive of judgment] (Mittner 1939:
203f.).
142 Case functions
in jainamma daga (Mk 4:35, 7:22, Lk 10:12, 17:31, Jn 14:20, 16:23, 2Tim 4:8A/B) ‘on that
(remote) day’, in þamma afardaga (Lk 7:11) ‘on the next day’ (§7.7).
Probably a reflex of the instrumental (Winkler 1896: 111f.), event quantification
by time adverbials requires a prepositionless dative; cf. ainamma sinþa (2Cor 11:25B,
1Thess 2:18B, Phil 4:16B) ‘one time’, þrim sinþam (Mt 26:75+ [8x]) ‘three times’
(Gk. trís ‘id.’), sibun sinþam (Lk 17:4 2x) ‘seven times’, etc. (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 628).
Since the dative designated the recipient in Indo-European, it was no semantic stretch
to use it for the implication of reception, namely possession (Benveniste 1951a; Vykypěl
& Rabus 2011). This was a derived rather than original function (Behaghel 1908;
Haudry 1977: 43–8; Hettrich 2011). With a copula, the dative came to designate
possession, in contrast to the genitive of belonging or ownership (GCS 90ff.; Delbrück
1907: 120; Benveniste 1960a; Watkins 1967; Miller 1969). Ownership and possession
are concepts of property exchange and should not be confused with each other or
with locative concepts (pace, e.g. Clark 1978: §3.2).21
The dative encodes many semantic relations, including experiencer (Pinkster 2015:
107–10). In (105–7), for instance, sorrow, need, and struggle are not possessions but
mental states experienced by the person in the dative (Behaghel 1908; Hettrich 2011).
(105) saurga mis ist mikila (Rom 9:2A)
sorrow.nom.sg I.dat.sg is great.nom.sg.f
‘my sorrow is great, I have great sorrow’
(106) fraujin þaurfts þis ist (Lk 19:34)
lord.dat.sg need.nom.sg D.gen.sg.m/n is
‘the Lord has need of him/it’ (interpretations differ on ‘him’ or ‘it’)
[Gk. ho kurios autoũ khreíān ékhei ‘the Lord has need of him/it’]
21 Stassen (2009: ch. 9, esp. pp. 277–81) calls the dative of possession ‘locational’, which is misleading
because Indo-European had a locative case, which was not so used. Eng. have encompasses reflexes of the
dative and the locative. Locational Mark has a scratch (on him) permutes with there is a scratch on Mark,
very different from possessive Mark has a book (on him), not the same as #there is a book on Mark. While
it has been argued (e.g. Avelar 2009, w. lit) that exist plus dative-locative or proximous adposition under-
lies have in many languages, Benveniste (1960a) shows that Fr. le/*un livre est à moi ‘the/*a book belongs
to me’ is not the same as j’ai un livre ‘I have a book’, even though the former corresponds formally to Lat.
est mihi liber ‘I have a book’. Also oversimplified are attempts to reduce the predicative dative of possession
to old information and the predicative genitive to topic (Woodcock 1958: 46; Stassen 2009: 29, w. lit).
While the genitive can signal on a language-specific basis a definite possessee, the possessee with a dative
possessor can be definite or indefinite. Although it is generally claimed that the dative prefers an indefinite
possessee (Heine 1997: 29–33), Stassen (2009: 28ff.) shows that definite and indefinite are independent.
Largely ignored in the literature is the fact that possession and belonging are primitives in the sense that
acquisitive desire is one of the first relationships expressed by children, and the earliest examples of their geni-
tives are of the my / mine variety, acquired shortly after I, it, and before other possessives (cf. Sørensen 1974;
Perkins 2011). That this becomes codified culturally into lexically, morphologically, or syntactically expressed
legal concepts of property exchange, ownership, and possession is discussed by Benveniste and Watkins.
4.30–43 Dative 143
Schrader (1874: 12–16) argues that the genitive and dative remained distinct. Like
the English to construction, the Gothic dative is circumstantial (cf. Feuillet 2014: 47),
e.g. aiwa sunus imma ist (Lk 20:44) [how is he a son to him] ‘how can he be his son?’
(Gk. gen autoũ ‘his’), allaim andbahts (Mk 9:35) ‘a servant to all’ (Gk. pántōn ‘of all’),
sijai allaim skalks (Mk 10:44) ‘shall be servant to all’,22 þu is siponeis þamma (Jn 9:28)
‘you are a disciple to him’, frijonds kaisara (Jn 19:12) ‘a friend to Caesar’ (Gk. Kaísaros
‘of Caesar’), etc. (cf. Piper 1874: 23ff.; Balg 1891: 239f.; Winkler 1896: 21f.).23
The dative was used mostly with body parts as a way of coding inalienable possession.
Several constructions are combined here. One is the so-called external possessor, in
which the possessor and possessee belong to separate NPs (Luraghi 2003: 44f., w. lit).
Language-specifically, this is intimately connected with inalienable possession (Havers
1911, Haspelmath 1999), as in Gothic, the warrant for combining them here. All of the
uses are collected in Piper (1874: 15).
(111) ni galeiþiþ imma in hairto, ak in wamba (Mk 7:19)
neg go.3sg he.dat in heart.acc.sg but in belly.acc.sg
‘it does not go into his heart (lit. the heart to him) but into (his) belly’
(112) sa izei uslauk augona þamma
D.nom.sg.m who open.3sg.pret eye.acc.pl D.dat.sg.m
blindin (Jn 11:37)
blind.dat.sg.m.wk
‘this (man) who opened the eyes of the blind man’
(113) jūs skuluþ izwis misso þwahan fotuns (Jn 13:14)
you.pl should.2pl you.dat.pl recip wash.inf feet.acc.pl
‘you should wash one another’s feet’
(114) sah niþjis was þamm-ei af-maimait Paitrus auso
D.nom relative was dat.sg.m-rel off-cut.3sg.pret P. ear.acc.sg
‘he was a relative whose ear Peter cut off ’ (Jn 18:26)
The last example means literally ‘a relative to whom Peter cut off the ear’; cf. af-sloh
imma auso (Mk 14:47) ‘struck off his ear’ (lit. ‘the ear to him’).
22 On skalks ist frawaurhtai (Jn 8:34) ‘he is a servant of [lit. to] sin’, Peeters (1985a) considers and
(rightly) rejects the idea of a nominalization that preserves the dative of the verb skalkinon (§4.43). More
likely, both skalks and skalkinon ‘be a servant (to someone)’ license a referential (or circumstantial) dative.
23 Dative and genitive alternate in the MS: broþar Iakoba jah Iūse jah Iūdins jah Seimonis (Mk 6:3) ‘the
brother to James and Joses (Joseph) and of Judas and Simon’ (Balg 1891: 240), but Gothicists have tended
to support Streitberg’s conjectured gen Iakobaus* and Iusezis* (Snædal 2018: 201).
4.30–43 Dative 145
The dative of (inalienable) possession is most typical with affected objects; cf. ga-smait
imma ana augona (Jn 9:6) ‘smeared (mud) on his eyes’, bi-smait mis augona (Jn 9:11)
‘smeared (mud) about my eyes’ (both ga-smeitan* and bi-smeitan* are hapaxes).
In the following pairs the dative competes with the genitive:
(115) a) us-þwoh izwis fotuns (Jn 13:14)
‘I washed clean your (dat) feet’
Generally speaking, if the body part is unaffected, the possessor is in the genitive,
e.g. kukida fotum is (Lk 7:38) ‘kissed his feet’, us hairtin manne (Mk 7:21) ‘out of the
heart of people’, in wambai aiþeins seinaizos (Lk 1:15) ‘in his mother’s womb’, du kni-
wam Iesuis (Lk 5:8) ‘at Jesus’ knees’, haubiþ Iohannis (Mk 6:25) ‘John’s head’, in augin
broþrs þeinis (Lk 6:41) ‘in your brother’s eye’, etc. (cf. Karpov 2005a: 112).24
The dative of price is an old instrumental expression (Köhler 1864: 50; GCS 112;
Delbrück 1907: 240) represented by the dative in Gothic, e.g. wairþa galaubamma
usbauhtai sijuþ (1Cor 7:23A) ‘you were bought for a costly price’ (Kapteijn 1911: 267).
The assarion in (118) was a Greek copper coin of low value, but the Gothic form is
from Lat. assārius in c3 (Francovich Onesti 2011: 201; cf. GGS 179, NWG 202).
(118) ni-u twai sparwans assarjau bugjanda
neg-Q two.nom.pl.m sparrows.nom.pl assarion.dat.sg buy.3pl.pass
‘are not two sparrows bought for a penny?’ (Mt 10:29)
24 An exception with the genitive for strongly affected body parts is gablindida ize augona jah gadaubida
ize hairtona (Jn 12:40) ‘he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts’. Since the blinding and harden-
ing were not physical but metaphorical, this may have been reinforced by the genitive in place of the
dative.
146 Case functions
A modernized version of (118) occurs in (119) with the P in replacing the old dative.
(119) frabugjan in managizo þau þrija hunda
sell.inf in more.acc.sg.n than three.acc hundred.acc
skatte (Mk 14:5)
coin.gen.pl
‘to sell for more than three hundred denarii’
25 Originally, an instrumental relation on the evidence of e sijaina galeikai (Lk 7:31) ‘what are they
like?’, e galeikom þiudangardja gudis (Mk 4:30) ‘with what shall we compare the kingdom of God’, etc.
(Bernhardt 1885: 89; Balg 1891: 248f.; Winkler 1896: 144).
26 Since the adverb ni-ba(i) [not-if] ‘unless, except for’ (Gk. ei m lit. ‘if not’) does not have a case
feature, the goal predicate is licensed by skuld ‘lawful’. The Greek text has acc toùs hiereĩs ‘the priests’.
148 Case functions
Use of the instrumental dative to specify the respect, extent, or limit to which a state
or activity holds is frequent (Piper 1874: 29f.; GCS 113ff.). Semantically, this involves an
area, or “abstract space in which the situation denoted by the verb holds; furthermore,
Area denotes a quality that affects a referent to a certain extent” (Luraghi 2003: 48).
A basic example is Saurini fwnikiska gabaurþai (Mk 7:26) ‘A Phoenician Syrian
(woman) by birth’ (Winkler 1896: 107).
With a finite verb, cf. Iesus þaih frodein jah wahstau (Lk 2:52) ‘Jesus grew in wisdom
and stature’. The Greek text also has a dative of respect, but for ni waihtai maurnaiþ
(Phil 4:6A/B) ‘be anxious in nothing’ Greek has acc mēdén ‘(in) nothing’.
Participles and adjectives often have a dative of respect (Delbrück 1907: 135, 136, 137,
176, 184), e.g. unhrains im waurda (2Cor 11:6B) ‘I am crude in speech’, modeled after
the Greek idi tēs tõi lógōi ‘a commoner/unskilled in speech’, unkunþs wlita (Gal 1:22A/B)
‘unknown in/by face’, usdaudein ni latai (Rom 12:11A) ‘not lacking in zeal’, wahstau leitils
was (Lk 19:3) ‘he was small in stature’, ei fraþjam fullaweisai sijaiþ (1Cor 14:20A) ‘that in
understanding you may be fully cognizant’, riqizeinai gahugdai wisandans (Eph 4:18A/B)
‘being darkened in (moral) understanding’ (misinterpreted as a (nonexistent) dative of
characteristic in Feuillet 2014: 46) = Gk. eskotisménoi tẽi dianoíāi [dat] ‘id.’, ga-malwidans
hairtin (Lk 4:18) ‘those crushed in heart’, gaskohai fotum (Eph 6:15A/B) ‘shod with
respect to the feet’, usbalþeins frawardidaize manne ahin (1Tim 6:5A/B) ‘conflicts of
people corrupted in mind’. For the last three, Greek has acc of respect t n kardíān ‘in
heart’, toùs pódas ‘with respect to the feet’, tòn noũn ‘in mind’.
4.30–43 Dative 149
Haitans is inserted in was namin haitans Lazarus (Lk 16:20) ‘was by name called
Lazarus’, but not (pace Cloutier 2013: 36) because the Gothic has two clauses vs. one in
Greek. The Byzantine main text has the same two clauses.27
Gk. zēmiōthẽi t n psūkh n autoũ ‘(that) he forfeit his (gen) soul (acc)’ is translated
into Gothic with a dative of respect: gasleiþeiþ sik saiwalai seinai (Mk 8:36) ‘has
injured himself in respect to his soul’ (Sturtevant 1947b: 412).
27 Naming constructions are sometimes restructured in Gothic, e.g. haitans was namin Malkus
(Jn 18:10) ‘he was called by name Malchus’ vs. Gk. ẽn dè ónoma tõi doúlōi Málkhos [was but name to the
slave Malchus] ‘the slave had the name Malchus’. Compare the Latin versions in VL (1963: 190). Another
kind of restructuring occurs in a ist namo þein (Lk 8:30) ‘what is your name?’ vs. Gk. tí soí estin ónoma
[what to you is name] (Odefey 1908: 47).
150 Case functions
And-hafjan (freq) ‘answer’ takes dative of the individual or entity responded to, e.g.
witeiþ aiwa skuleiþ ain arjammeh andhafjan (Col 4:6A/B) ‘you may know how you
should reply to everyone’.
And-hausjan* ‘heed’ takes a human complement in the dative, pronominal except
for frawaurhtaim (Jn 9:31) ‘sinners’, in all seven of its active sentences (1 dupl), e.g. (121).
(121) þatei sinteino mis andhauseis (Jn 11:42)
comp always I.dat.sg heed.2sg
‘that you always heed me’
The dative complement of this verb is the nominative subject of the corresponding
passive sentence (cf. GE 168):
This verb has only two passive forms. The other is andhausida ist bida þeina (Lk 1:13)
‘your prayer has been heard’. A reasonable hypothesis is that nonanimate nouns like
‘prayer’ would be accusative objects of an active sentence, hence nominative in the
passive. But that does not account for the subject of (122), for which the verbal agree-
ment shows that the null subject bears nominative case.
And-qiþan (2x) ‘approach’ takes dat objects: andqiþan imma (Lk 8:19) ‘to approach
him’, andqiþan þaim (Lk 9:61) ‘to approach them’.
And-standan ‘resist, oppose, stand up to’, e.g. ni andstandan allis þamma unseljin
(Mt 5:39) ‘not to oppose the evil (man) at all’, g(u)þ hauhairtaim andstan|diþ (Bl 2r.8f.)
‘God opposes the arrogant’.
And-tilon* (2x) ‘be devoted to’, e.g. ainamma andtiloþ (Lk 16:13) ‘he will be devoted
to one (person)’.
Awiliudon (well attested) ‘give thanks to; thank’, e.g. awiliudo guda (Rom 7:25A,
1Cor 1:14A, 2Tim 1:3A, Bl 1r.23f.) ‘I thank God’.
Bairgan* (3x) ‘keep; protect’: bairgiþ izai (Jn 12:25) ‘will keep it (life)’, ei bairgais im
(Jn 17:15) ‘that you protect them’, bairgais un|sis (Bl 1r.5f.) ]you (should) protect us’; ga-
bairgan* ‘preserve together’ attests one form, a passive, and the dative remains in an
impersonal construction: bajoþum gabairgada (Mt 9:17) ‘both are preserved together’
(lit. ‘it is preserved both’). The Greek and Latin versions have nominative passives:
Gk. amphóteroi suntēroũntai, Lat. ambō cōnservantur ‘both are preserved’. The Vetus
Latina manuscripts have several lexical variants, but no syntactic difference (VL 1972: 51).
A contrast is often drawn (e.g. Schulze 1909: 321; Harbert 1978: 88) between gabairgan
and gafastan ‘guard, keep’, which takes acc objects and predictably has a passive with
nom subject: bajoþs gafastanda (Lk 5:38) ‘both are preserved’.
Balwjan (4x) ‘torture’, e.g. ni balwjais mis (Mk 5:7, Lk 8:28) ‘don’t torture me’. The
passive participle balwiþs (Mt 8:6) ‘suffering’ (lit. ‘tortured’) shows that the dative
object of the active sentence is the nominative subject of the passive.
4.30–43 Dative 151
Bi-niman* (1x) ‘steal’: þai siponjos is binimaina imma (Mt 27:64) ‘his disciples may
steal him’. The Germanic cognates of this verb also take an instrumental dative
(Bernhardt 1880: 79ff.), probably because bi + dat can have this meaning (§6.8).
Brūkjan in the sense of ‘use’ takes a dative complement: sinteinom daupeinim
brūkjan ‘to use daily ablutions’ (Sk 3.2.11f.).
Faur-biudan* (7x, 1 dupl) ‘command’ takes dative of individuals and entities, e.g.
jah windam faurbiudiþ jah watnam (Lk 8:25) ‘he commands both the winds and the
waters’, faurbauþ im ei mannhun ni qeþeina bi ina (Mk 8:30) ‘he charged them not to
tell anyone about him’ (cf. §§5.6, 9.3, 52).
Fra-kunnan (16x, 2 dupl) ‘reject, despise’ is frequent with a dative complement,
e.g. anþaramma frakann (Mt 6:24, Lk 16:13) ‘he will despise the other (master)’, but the
subject of the passive is nominative (indicated by agreement) and even coordinated
with another verb’s nominative subject: ei manag winnai jah frakunþs wairþai (Mk 9:12)
‘that he is to suffer much and be rejected’.
Fra-liusan* (9x) ‘lose’, e.g. fraliusands ainamma þize (Lk 15:4) ‘losing one of them
(lambe sheep)’. The dative complement is nominative subject of the passive: fralusans
was (Lk 15:24) ‘he was lost’.
Fra-qiman (7x, 2dupl) ‘destroy, spend’ regularly has instrumental dat complements
(Bernhardt 1880: 81f.), e.g. fraqimai im (Lk 9:54) ‘destroy them’, and the passive subject
is nominative as shown by agreement: fram izwis misso fraqimaindau (Gal 5:15B) ‘you
will be destroyed by each other’; was fraquman . . . stiur ·α· (Neh 5:18) ‘was expended
(prepared) one ox . . . ’.
Fraujinon (7x, 3 dupl) ‘(be) lord over, rule over’, e.g. skalkos ize fraujinodedun þizai
managein (Neh 5:15) ‘their servants lorded it over the people’.
Fra-wisan* (1x) ‘use up’: þan frawas allamma (Lk 15:14) ‘when he spent everything’.
Ga-laubjan (freq) ‘believe’ can take dat of the person (galaubeiþ mis Jn 8:45, 14:11,
etc. ‘you believe (in) me’) or of the entity (waurdam galaubjaiþ Jn 5:47 ‘will you believe
my words?’), or acc of the entity (galaubeis þata Jn 11:26 ‘do you believe this?’).
Ga-leikan (20, 4 dupl) in the sense of ‘please, be pleasing’ can have an experiencer
dative, e.g. ei galeikai þammei drauhtinoþ (2Tim 2:4B) ‘that he may please the one
for whom he serves militarily’ (cf. §5.17), galeikaida jah mis . . . þus meljan (Lk 1:3) ‘it
seemed best to me to write to you’. The participle is adjectival, e.g. gakiusandans þatei
sijai waila galeikaiþ fraujin (Eph 5:10B) ‘trying to ascertain what may be acceptable to
the Lord’. Simplex leikan* ‘please’ in one of its two occurrences has a simple dat: unte
ik þatei leikaiþ imma tauja sinteimo (Jn 8:29) ‘because what pleases him I always do’.
Ga-motjan (9x) ‘meet’ in all of its occurrences has a dative complement, e.g.
gamotida imma (Mk 5:2, Lk 8:27, 9:37, Jn 11:30) ‘met him’; cf. urrunnun wiþragamot-
jan imma (Jn 12:13) ‘they ran out to meet him’, but since wiþra takes only acc (§6.20),
it may be an adverb here (Rousseau 2012: 122), possibly mirroring Lat. obviam (Marold
1883: 67f.).
Ga-raidjan (3x, 1 dupl) ‘instruct, order, direct’, e.g. swaswe ik þus garaidida (Tit 1:5B)
‘as I directed you’.
Ga-sibjon (1x): gasibjon broþr þeinamma (Mt 5:24) ‘make peace with your brother’.
152 Case functions
Ga-skaþjan* (4x, 1 dupl) ‘do harm, wrong’, e.g. jabai a gaskoþ þus (Philem 18) ‘if
he has wronged you in any way’, in which a ‘anything’ is accusative of respect
(or adverbial accusative); cf. (ni ) waiht ‘no thing’ in ni waiht mis gaskoþuþ (Gal 4:12A)
‘you did me no wrong; you did not harm me at all’, but an instrumental dative
also obtains: ni waihtai gaskaþjands imma (Lk 4:35) ‘injuring him by no means
(i.e. in no way)’.
Ga-trauan* ‘be confident (of), have confidence (in)’ normally takes a PP with in
‘in’, but there is one clear example of the dative alone: gatrauands ufhauseinai þeinai
(Philem 21) ‘having confidence in your obedience’. In the sense of ‘entrust’, gatrauan*
is ditransitive and only the structural accusative can be the nominative subject of the
passive, e.g. þatei gatrauaiþ ist mis (1Tim 1:11B) ‘which has been entrusted to me’.
Ga-þlaihan (11x, 6 dupl) ‘embrace; (en)treat’ rarely has a complement: gaþlaihands
im (Mk 10:16) ‘hugging them’, gaþlaih swe attin, juggans swe broþruns (1Tim 5:1B)
‘entreat (him) as a father; (treat) young men as brothers’ with a switch to the acc
(based on an ambiguity of the verb?).
Gaumjan ‘see, notice’, e.g. gaumida mann blindamma (Jn 9:1) ‘he noticed a blind man’.
There is one passive: ei gaumjaindau mannam (Mt 6:5) ‘that they may be noticed (by)
people’. Verbal agreement shows that the null subject is nominative but the dative
mannam is unusual for an agentive ‘by’-phrase, which is standardly prepositional
(§6.12), the main exception being instrumental datives, e.g. jabai ahmin tiuhanda
(Gal 5:18A) ‘if you are led by the spirit’ (Piper 1874: 29; Delbrück 1907: 173). But given
the Gk. phanõsin toĩs anthr pois, it is possible that gaumjaindau mannam means simply
‘appear/be visible to people’, and is a true dative (Köhler 1864: 37; GCS 86). The Latin
versions are mixed between videantur ab hominibus ‘be seen by people’ (Vulg.+) and
pāreant hominibus ‘appear/be visible to people’ (cod. Bezae [d/5] VL 1972: 30). Still,
the only reasonable interpretation of du sai an im (Mt 6:1) is ‘to be seen by them’.
Hatizon* ‘be angry’ in its sole occurrence takes a dative complement: mis hatizoþ
(Jn 7:23) ‘you are angry with me’.
Horinon (12x, 1 dupl) ‘commit adultery’ is exclusively intransitive, but ga-horinon*,
in its only occurrence, takes a dative complement: gahorinoda izai (Mt 5:28) ‘commit-
ted adultery with her’ (vs. Gk. acc aut n ‘her’), which may be a function of sociative
ga- ‘together with’ (Winkler 1896: 29, 77, 83); cf. ga-sibjon (q.v.) ‘reconcile with’ (Mossé
1956: 159). However, since ga-horinoda translates a Greek aorist emoíkheusen, ga- can
also indicate (at least lexical) aspect (cf. Streitberg 1891: 100).
otjan* (1x) ‘reprimand, rebuke’ and ga- otjan (6x, 1 dupl) ‘id.’ take dative comple-
ments, e.g. otidedun imma managai (Mk 10:48) ‘many rebuked him’, ga otida imma
Iesus (Lk 4:35) ‘Jesus rebuked him’.
Kukjan* (5x) ‘kiss’, e.g. ni kukides mis (Lk 7:45) ‘you did not kiss me’.
Laian* / lauan* (1x) ‘berate, insult’: lailoun imma (Jn 9:28) ‘they reviled him’.
Maurnan* (4x, 1 dupl) ‘be anxious about’: ni maurnaiþ saiwalai izwarai (Mt 6:25)
‘do not worry about your soul/life’.
Ne jan* (2x) ‘cause to become near’: wesun . . . imma ne jandans sik allai (Lk 15:1)
‘all drew near to him’ (cf. §6.27).
4.30–43 Dative 153
Qistjan (1x) ‘destroy’: sunus mans ni qam saiwalom qistjan, ak najsan (Lk 9:56)
‘the son of man did not come to destroy souls, but to save (them)’. While the Greek
and Latin versions also gap the object of ‘save’, both objects would be acc in those
languages, but only the second would be acc in Gothic.
Qiþan ‘say, tell’ standardly (exclusively in Skeireins; cf. Del Pezzo 1973a: 12) takes
dative of the goal (generally a person). For instance, qiþa izwis ‘I say to you’ occurs 65
times, and izwis qiþa ‘id.’ is also common (e.g. Mk 11:33, Lk 4:24, 16:9, 20:8, Jn 13:18,
16:7, 13:33). Qaþ izwis ‘I said to you’ occurs 11 times. And so on. But the P du [+dat]
‘to’ is also frequent, e.g. qaþ du im ‘he said to them’ (17x) beside qaþ im ‘id.’ (29x).
Occurrences of du require no translation-prompt (§6.9), e.g. qaþ aggilus du izai
(Lk 1:30) ‘the angel spoke to her’ (Gk. eĩpen ho ággelos autēi [dat]). For a nonhuman
goal, cf. qiþ þamma staina ei wairþai hlaibs (Lk 4:3) ‘tell this stone to become bread’.
Thematic objects of qiþan are accusative, e.g. ni kann a þu qiþis (Mk 14:68) ‘I don’t
understand what you are saying’, qiþ waurda (Mt 8:8, Lk 7:7) ‘say the words’.
When qiþan has both a theme and goal argument, the theme is in the accusative
and the goal is often a PP with du, e.g. waiht du imma ni qiþand (Jn 7:26) ‘they are not
saying a thing to him’, dugann þan du managein qiþan þo gajukon (Lk 20:9) ‘he began
then to speak to the crowd this parable’.
Raginon* (2x) ‘govern’, e.g. raginondin Puntiau Peilatau Iudaia (Lk 3:1) ‘with Pontius
Pilate governing Judea’.
Samjan (2x) ‘present a pleasing appearance’, e.g. swe mammam samjandans
(Col 3:22B) ‘as (those) trying to please people’.
Skalkinon (25x, 2 dupl) ‘be a servant to; serve’, e.g. ni manna mag twaim fraujam
skalkinon (Mt 6:24) ‘no man can serve two masters’, sa maiza skalkinoþ þamma
minnizin (Rom 9:1A) ‘the older will serve the younger’.
Straujan* (Mk 11:8 2x) and uf-straujan* (1x) ‘strew, spread’ take an instrumental
dative, e.g. wastjom seinaim strawidedun ana wiga (Mk 11:8) ‘they spread their gar-
ments on the road’; cf. uf-strawidedun wastjom seinaim ana wiga (Lk 19:36) ‘id. ’.
-Tekan ‘touch’, orig. ‘reach for, grab at’ (Bernhardt 1880: 76f.), e.g. as mis taitok
(Mk 5:31) ‘who touched me?’, as sa tekands mis (Lk 8:45) ‘who is this touching
me?’. Likewise at-tekan, e.g. sokidedun attekan imma (Lk 6:19) ‘they sought to touch
him’; attaitok wastjai is (Mk 5:27) ‘she touched his garment’ (Greek gen hīmatíou
‘garment’).
Ufar-munnon* (3x, 2 dupl) ‘forget (about), risk, hazard’: ufarmunnonds saiwalai
seinai (Phil 2:30A/B) ‘having no regard for his own life’.
Uf-hausjan (28x, 5 dupl) ‘heed, obey’ takes dative complements of both individuals
and entities, e.g. witoda gudis ni ufhauseiþ (Rom 8:7A) ‘it (the mind of the flesh) does
not obey God’s law’, unte jah winds jah marei ufhausjand imma (Mk 4:41) ‘given that
both the wind and the sea obey him’.
Us-agljan* ‘bother’ in its sole occurrence has a dative complement: usagljai mis ‘she
pesters me’ (Lk 18:5).
Us-laubjan* (11x, 1 dupl) ‘let, permit’, e.g. uslaubei mis galeiþan (Lk 9:59) ‘let me go’
(more examples in Grünwald 1910: 27).
154 Case functions
Us-qistjan (8x) ‘destroy, kill’, e.g. usqisteiþ aurtjam þaim (Lk 20:16) ‘he will destroy
these farmers’, sokidedun, aiwa imma usqistidedeina (Mk 11:18) ‘they sought a way to
destroy him’.
Us-þriutan* (3x) ‘bother’: du e izai usþriutiþ (Mk 14:6) ‘why are you bothering her?’.
Waldan (2x) ‘rule, manage’ and ga-waldan* (1x) ‘exercise authority over’: ga-
waldand im (Mk 10:42) ‘they exercise authority over them’.28
-Waurdjan ‘speak’ is attested in compounds that take dative complements: and-
waurdjan* (1x) ‘talk back’: ei andwaurdjais guda (Rom 9:20A) ‘(who are you) that talk
back to God?’. Observe also ubil-waurdjan (1x) ‘speak evil’:
(123) jah magi sprauto ubil-waurdjan mis (Mk 9:39)
and can.3sg.opt quickly evil-speak.inf I.dat.sg
‘and be able quickly (i.e. soon afterwards) to speak evil of me’
[Gk. kaì dun setai takhù kakologẽsaí me (acc)]
The dative complement (mis) contrasts with the Greek model, in which kako-logeĩn
‘evil-speak’ (here, aorist infinitive kako-logẽsai) takes an accusative object (me ‘me’).
Ubilwaurdjan contrasts with ubil qiþan* ‘curse’, also with dative (acc in Greek, using
the same verb): saei ubil qiþai attin seinamma (Mk 7:10) ‘he who curses his father’
(Grünwald 1910: 7). Most of the Latin versions make the same contrast as Gothic:
ubilwaurdjan = male loquī ‘speak badly’ + PP with dē ‘about’; ubil qiþan* = maledīcere +
dative (quī maledīxerit patrī ‘who will curse the father’).
Weitwodjan* (freq) ‘bear witness’, e.g. weitwodja auk im/imma/izwis þatei . . . ‘I testify
to them/him/you’ that . . .’ (cf. Melazzo 2004: 375).
2.Witan (11x) ‘watch, guard’: witaidedun imma (Mk 3:2) ‘they watched him’ witaida
baurg Damaskai (2Cor 11:32B) ‘guarded the city (of) Damascus’, hait nu witan þamma
hlaiwa (Mt 27:64) ‘command therefore that the tomb be guarded’. This example is
supposedly passive, maintaining the dative case (cf. not unambiguously Berard 1993a:
232ff.) but, as this section shows, that would be quite exceptional; more likely is the
analysis with null object controlling the infinitival subject, i.e. ‘command (someone)
to guard the tomb’.
The only prefixed form of 2.witan is the hapax ga-witan* ‘watch closely’ in gawitais
unsis (Bl 1r.6) = Gk. diatēr seis ‘you will guard us’, in which the ambiguous unsis is
likely dative.
As frequently noted (e.g. Winkler 1896: 34; Vogel 2000: 16), the impersonal passive
with dative is rare: bajoþum gabairgada (Mt 9:17) ‘both are preserved together’ (lit. ‘it
28 Waldaiþ annom izwaraim (Lk 3:14) ‘be satisfied with your wages’. Gabelentz & Löbe (1848: 595)
translate ‘imperētis stipendiīs vestrīs’ [manage your wages] but mention Thomas Marshall’s conjecture
that Gk. arkeĩsthe ‘be contented’ was misread by the Gothic translator as árkhesthe ‘rule’ and corrected in
the margin: ganohidai sijaiþ ‘be contented’. Although this explains the margin gloss, which need not reflect
Latin influence (pace Marold 1881a: 141f., Francovich Onesti 2011: 208), it is rejected by Köhler (1864:
16f.) because ‘manage your wages’ makes sense. This misses the point that waldaiþ should not translate
arkeĩsthe. The conjecture is accepted by Scardigli (1964: 133, 222; 1973: 190) and Falluomini (2015: 123).
Waldaiþ is not (pace Lane 1933: 325f.) a gloss of active arkeĩn ‘ward off, defend’.
4.44 Verbs with semantically determined case variability 155
is preserved both’). The Bologna fragment attests three adjacent examples: stau|am
fra[t ]rudan warþ, praufetum usquman | warþ, weihaim gamaur þiþ warþ (Bl 1r.17ff.:
Falluomini 2017) ‘judges were trodden upon (?), prophets were killed, saints were
murdered’. For us-qiman with dat see §4.45. For the otherwise unattested fra-trudan,
see Falluomini (2014: 297). *Gamaurþjan ‘murder’ is unattested. It would presumably
differ from maurþrjan* ‘(commit) murder’ [+acc] in taking a dative complement, but
this is uncertain. In fact, if the construction is used incorrectly, it demonstrates how
moribund the impersonal dative passive was.
The impersonal passive with dative is rare except in the Bologna fragment.29
Nominative subjects were fully grammatical to passivized dative verbs in Gothic
(Köhler 1864: 35ff.). With a single-object verb, structural case is not exhausted and
remains available for passive subjects even to verbs that take inherent (but not lexical)
case, but with ditransitive verbs, structural case is exhausted, precluding nominative
case for a second DP (for other languages with both distributions, see Miller 2002, w.
lit). With the former, the older impersonal dative would remain as a stylistic option,
available in rhetorically charged passages of the kind that typify the Bologna fragment.
In summary, four patterns are attested to dative verbs: (i) nom subject with wisan
and wairþan passives, (ii) nom subject with morphological passives, (iii) impersonal
morphological passive with dative, (iv) impersonal periphrastic passive with dative.
The first two are the rule, the last two isolated. Both sets violate the generalization by
Abraham (2011: 107f.) that dative verbs maintain their oblique case marking with
ordinary passives but the “stative adjectival passive” can only occur with nominative
subjects. While this may hold for Icelandic, it is irrelevant for Gothic.
29 Gippert (2016: 142ff.) attributes the distribution to topicalization, assuming a more advanced state of
grammaticalization of the wairþan passive. But since (i) there are no additional examples of passives with
the present tense of wairþan, which could suggest (more) grammaticalization, and (ii) Gothic was in the
process of replacing dative DPs in the passive (retained in the rest of Germanic) with nominative subjects,
a later development should exhibit more, not fewer, nominative subjects. This change has been related
to acquisition of subjecthood by topics or reinforcement of subjecthood by oblique subjects (Köhler 1864:
36f.; Cole et al. 1980). Gippert concludes that the rarity of impersonal passives in the Gothic Bible is due
to the translated text in contrast to the freer Bologna fragment, but this does not explain why double
object verbs invariably retain the oblique case in passive sentences. The impersonal passive remained a
marked stylistic option whose rarity in the Bible is probably due to translation prompts. A translation
prompt presupposes that the construction is equally grammatical in both languages, and thus differs
crucially from borrowed or calqued syntax. The passionate style of the Bologna fragment can be a factor
motivating use (and misuse?) of the marked construction.
156 Case functions
Saian ‘sow’ takes dative of items literally planted: du saian fraiwa seinamma
(Mk 4:3, Lk 8:5) ‘to sow (with) his seed’, but accusative of a figurative item: waurd
saijiþ (Mk 4:14) ‘sows the word’ (cf. Winkler 1896: 29; GCS 195).
Wairpan (13x) ‘throw’ normally takes instrumental dative complements (Hewson
2006: 278), e.g. wairp þus in marein (Mk 11:23) ‘throw yourself into the sea’, but note
the isolated wairp þuk þaþro dalaþ (Lk 4:9) ‘throw yourself down from here’ (Delbrück
1907: 180). In figurative senses, the accusative is used, as wairpandans nati in marein
(Mk 1:16) ‘lowering (casting) the net into the sea’, hence natja is likely acc pl (Delbrück
1907: 181) rather than dat sg (GE 175) in wairpam natja (Lk 5:5) ‘we will lower the
nets’. See also §4.52.
There are also verbs that alternate between dative and accusative complements with
no evident difference in meaning or complement type. Some core examples follow.
Bi-leiþan* (26x, 2 dupl) ‘leave behind, abandon’ generally takes dative comple-
ments, e.g. bileiþiþ þaim lambam (Jn 10:12) ‘abandons the sheep’, but also accusative:
mik ainana bileiþiþ (Jn 16:32) ‘you (will) leave me behind alone’. Passives do not seem
to have the sense of ‘abandon’: ains usnimada jah anþar bileiþada (Lk 17:34) ‘one will
be taken away and the other left behind’, ei biliþanai weseima in Aþeinim ainai (1Thess
3:1B) ‘that we be left behind in Athens alone’.
Fra-qistjan (23x, 1 dupl) ‘lose, destroy’ can take dat complements, e.g. fraqisteiþ
izai (Mt 10:39+ [6x]) ‘will lose it (life, soul)’, fraqistida allaim (Lk 17:29) ‘destroyed
them all’, or acc, e.g. fraqistida allans (Lk 17:27) ‘id.’ (cf. GCS 192f.).
Id-weitjan (7x) ‘denounce, rebuke’ occurs with the dative (3x), accusative (1x), and
ambiguous (1x). Agreement in the passive reveals a nominative subject: arbaidjam jah
idweitjanda (1Tim 4:10B) ‘we labor and (we) get reviled/suffer reproach’.
Skaidan (5x) ‘divide; separate; divorce’ allegedly takes dative as well as accusative
objects (GCS 193), but both times a genuine object is present, it is accusative. A dative
occurs once: manna þamma ni skaidai (Mk 10:9) ‘a man shall not put asunder’.
The Greek and Latin texts have no object: ánthrōpos m khōrizétō, Vulg. homō nōn
sēparet ‘id.’; the Vet. Lat. MSS have different verbs, none has an object (VL 1970: 89).
What is þamma? An object is theoretically possible: ‘a man shall not put it asunder’.
But the dative case is not explained, and another possibility is an instrumental:
‘(what God has joined together), a man must not separate by (means of) that’, i.e.
‘through divorce’.
Þiuþjan* (19x, 1 dupl; 9x in Lk, never in Jn) ‘bless’ takes acc or dat objects: þiuþjaiþ
þans fraqiþandans izwis (Lk 6:28) ‘bless those cursing you’, þiuþida im (Mk 10:16)
‘blessed them’.
Us-dreiban (12x) ‘drive out’ alternates between dative (Mk 5:10, Lk 9:40, 43) and
accusative (7x) complements with no evident semantic difference (Delbrück 1907: 23;
158 Case functions
but see Leont’ev 1965: 257). The remaining two occurrences are passive and the subject
is nominative: usdribans warþ unhulþo (Mt 9:33) ‘the demon was driven out’, usdrib-
ana warþ so managei (Mt 9:25) ‘the crowd was driven out’.
Us-qiman (27x, 1 dupl) ‘kill’ takes instrumental dat (Bernhardt 1880: 81f.), e.g. usqi-
mand imma (Mt 8:21, 10:34, Lk 18:33) ‘they (will) kill him’. With acc, e.g. sokidedun
ina þai Iudaieis usqiman (Jn 7:1) ‘the Jews sought to kill him’ (GCS 192), can be inter-
preted ‘the Jews sought him to kill (him)’ (Wrenn 1929; cf. Sturtevant 1931: 29).
Us-wairpan (34x) ‘throw/cast out’, e.g. uswaurpun imma ut (Jn 9:34) ‘they threw
him out’, stains þammei uswaurpun (Mk 12:10) ‘the stone which they threw out’.
Accusative objects are also frequent, e.g. uswairpan unhulþons (Mk 3:15) ‘to cast out
demons’. Demons and spirits are in the accusative with one exception: uswairpiþ þaim
unhulþom (Mk 3:22) ‘he is driving out demons’. Unambiguous pronominal objects
are dative with one exception: uswairpandans ina ut (Lk 20:15) ‘throwing him out’
(cf. Delbrück 1907: 181). Because of the case variability, it is impossible to determine
what case in the active sentence would correspond to a nominative subject in the
passive, e.g. sa reiks þis fair aus uswairpada ut (Jn 12:31) ‘the ruler of this world will
be cast out’.
The norm for hausjan is dative of the person and accusative of the entity.
(124) Dative of the person
saei hauseiþ izwis, mis hauseiþ (Lk 10:16)
‘he who heeds you, heeds me’
[Gk. ho akoúōn hūmõn emoũ (gen) akoúei, Lat. quī vōs audit, mē (acc) audit ]
Other examples: hauseiþ mis allai (Mk 7:14) ‘listen to me, all (of you)’, hausjandans
þus (1Tim 4:16B) ‘those hearing you’, hausjan imma ‘to hear him’ (Lk 6:18, 15:1,
19:48), hausjands imma (Mk 6:20) ‘hearing him’, alla so managei hausidedun imma
(Mk 12:37) ‘the entire crowd listened to him’, hausjaina izwis (Mk 6:11) ‘(if) they (do
not) listen to you’, akei ni hausidedun im þo lamba (Jn 10:8) ‘but the sheep did not listen
to them’, hausjandan im jah fraihnandan ins (Lk 2:46) ‘listening to them and asking
4.46–9 Variable case complements of hausjan ‘hear’ 159
them questions’, iohanne haus|jan þūhtedun (Sk 6.1.10f.) ‘they seemed to listen to
John’, iohan|ne hausjandans (Sk 3.2.13f.) ‘(they) heeding John’, þamma hauseiþ (Jn
9:31) ‘he listens to that (person)’, a þamma hauseiþ (Jn 10:20) ‘why do you listen
to him?’, þamma hausjaiþ (Mk 9:7, Lk 9:35) ‘listen to him, heed him’, aiwa galaub-
jand þammei ni hausidedun (Rom 10:14A) ‘how do they believe in him whom they
have not heard?’.
Other constructions are less frequent. Genitive of the person occurs once, and the
meaning seems to be actively ‘listen to’ (as opposed to passive hearing).
(126) Genitive of the person
allai þai hausjandans is (Lk 2:47)
‘all those listening to him’
[Gk. hoi akoúontes autoũ (gen) ‘id.’, Lat. quī audiēbant (eum) ‘who heard (him)’]
160 Case functions
Accusative of the person occurs in (127a), apparently with the meaning ‘hear
of ’. There is a possible second example in (127b), assuming that the construction
is indeed [. . . heard the crowd [PRO mumbling]], as the Greek and Latin versions
suggest.
(127) Accusative of the person
a) jabai . . . ina hausideduþ (Eph 4:21A/B)
if . . . he.acc.sg hear.2pl.pret
‘if you heard of him’
[Gk. eíge autòn (acc) ēkoúsate, Lat. sī tamen illum (acc) audīstis ‘id.’]
b) hausidedun þan Fareisaieis þo managein birodjandein bi ina þata (Jn 7:32)
‘the Pharisees then heard the crowd mumbling this about him’
[Gk. kousan hoi Pharisaĩoi toũ ókhlou goggúzontos (gen) perì autoũ taũta,
Lat. audiērunt Pharisaeī turbam murmurantem (acc) dē illō haec]
The entity is in the genitive only with stibna ‘voice’ and at least one occurrence of
the plural of waurd ‘word’.
(128) Genitive of the thing
a) ƕazuh saei ist sunjos, hauseiþ stibnos meinaizos (Jn 18:37)
‘each one who is of truth listens to my voice’
[Gk. akoúei mou tẽs phōnẽs (gen), Lat. audit vōcem meam (acc)]
The other possible example breaks off after þize, but waurde is doubtless to be restored:
Peilatus hausjands þize [waurde] (Jn 19:13) ‘Pilate hearing these (words)’ = Gk. v.l.
akoúsās tõn lógōn toútōn ‘having listened to these words’ (Byz. . . . toũton tòn lógon ‘this
word’), Lat. cum audīsset hōs sermōnēs ‘when he had heard these utterances’.
Dative of the thing, like the genitive, occurs twice with stibna ‘voice’, but also one
time with the plural of waurd ‘word’.
(129) Dative of the thing
a) lamba meina stibnai meinai hausjand (Jn 10:27)
sheep my.nom.pl voice.dat.sg my.dat.sg.f hear.3pl
‘my sheep listen to my voice’
[Gk. tẽs phōnẽs (gen) mou akoúousin, Lat. vōcem (acc) meam audiunt ]
4.50 Double object verbs 161
The paucity of examples with the entity in the genitive or dative makes any generaliza-
tion difficult. Is this simple variation, a semantic distinction, or the work of an
idiosyncratic translator? It is surely instructive for Gothic syntax that (i) stibna ‘voice’
never occurs in the accusative with hausjan, but twice in Skeireins with ga-hausjan
which, when not used absolutely, has only accusative complements, and (ii) all examples
with the entity in the genitive or dative (4 stibna ‘voice’, 3 waurd ‘word’, always plural)
occur between John 7 and 18, where forms of hausjan take the accusative five times
with a neuter pronoun, two times with waurd in the singular, and only one time with
plural waurda, the only instance of overlap. While the genitive can be modeled on the
Greek, the dative cannot.
The Vetus Latina manuscripts have few variants, mostly in word choices, but
occasionally in use of the genitive for the accusative, e.g. eius verbōrum ‘(of) his words’
(of questionable grammaticality) for haec verba ‘these words’ or hōs sermōnēs ‘these
utterances’ at Jn 7:40 (VL 1963: 80).
In Classical Greek, akoúein in the sense of ‘listen to, obey’ took genitive case (rarely
dative), and in the sense of ‘hear’ accusative. This is inconsistent in NT Greek where
the genitive is preferred in many instances. Rarer is the accusative which, however, is
more frequent in the Byzantine main text. Finally, as is evident from the examples
above, the Gothic translation rarely agrees with the Greek case use.30
30 To a limited extent the different cases in Gothic may be a function of different meanings. In
Lithuanian, for instance, klausyti ‘to listen to’ takes gen complements (muzikos ‘music’, motinos ‘mother’),
paklusti ‘obey’ takes dat (motinai ‘mother’, įsakymui ‘the law’), girdėti ‘hear’ takes acc (muziką ‘music’,
motiną ‘mother’), etc. (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.).
162 Case functions
The following ten verbs are listed as dat-acc in Ferraresi (2005: 64): at-augjan ‘show’,
at-bairan* ‘bring; offer’, bugjan ‘buy’, us-giban ‘pay’, (ga-, us-)kannjan ‘make known’,
leikan* ‘please’, (af-)letan ‘let, forgive’, qiþan ‘say’, (in-, us-)sakan ‘explain’, and-staldan
‘provide’. Other verbs will be added to this list.
Af-letan has two distinct sets of meanings: ‘give up, leave, divorce’ and ‘forgive’.
In the first sense it takes at most one complement. It is ditransitive only as ‘forgive’:
(130) afletiþ mannam missadedins ize (Mt 6:14, 15)
forgive.2pl man.dat.pl misdeeds.acc.pl your.gen.pl.m
‘you forgive people their transgressions’
And-bindan means both ‘unfasten, untie’ and ‘expound, explain’. Only in the latter
sense can it have two objects: siponjam seinaim andband allata (Mk 4:34) ‘to his
disciples he explained everything’.
And-staldan means both ‘promote’ (1Tim 1:4A/B) and ‘provide’. It has two objects
only in the latter sense in two of its remaining three occurrences, and is mixed acc-
dat and dat-acc:
(131) andstaldiþ izwis ahmin (Gal 3:5A)
provide.3sg you.acc.pl soul.dat.sg
‘provides you with a soul’
4.51 Dative-accusative verbs 163
At-augjan ‘show’ can be acc-dat: ataugeiþ izwis gudjam (Lk 17:14) ‘show your-
selves to the priests’, as well as dat-acc: ataugeiþ mis skatt (Lk 20:24) ‘show me a coin’;
cf. augjan* (2x) ‘show’: augei unsis þana attan (Jn 14:8, 9) ‘show us the father’.
At-bairan* (12x) ‘bring; offer’ normally has either an acc object of the item brought/
offered or a dat of the person to whom it is brought/offered. It has two complements
only twice: atbairiþ mis skatt (Mk 12:15) ‘bring me a coin’, atberun imma mannan
(Mt 9:32) ‘they brought him a man’. Since at ‘to, at’ takes dative complements, this may
exemplify P-incorporation (§6.42) rather than lexical ditransitivity.
Bugjan (9x) ‘buy’ occurs twice with two objects (Lk 9:12, 13), e.g. bugjaina sis matins
(Lk 9:12) ‘(that) they may get themselves victuals’.
Dragan* (1x) and ga-dragan* (1x) ‘attract, collect’: dragand sis laisarjans (2Tim 4:3B
~ A ga-) ‘they (will) accumulate for themselves teachers’.
Fra-letan (32x, 2 dupl) in the sense of ‘release’ can take two objects in any order,
e.g. fralailot im ainana bandjan (Mk 15:6) ‘he released to them one prisoner’, fraletan
ainana þizai managein bandjan (Mt 27:15) ‘to release one prisoner to the crowd’, ei
mais Barabban fralailoti im (Mk 15:11) ‘that he rather release Barabbas to them’.
Ga-bairhtjan (13x, 3 dupl) ‘reveal’ takes objects in both orders, dat-acc gabairhtja
imma mik silban (Jn 14:21) ‘I (will) reveal myself to him’, and acc-dat gabairhtida
þeinata namo mannam (Jn 17:6) ‘I revealed your name to the people’.
Ga-bindan ‘bind’ takes accusative of the entity and dative of the instrument
(Delbrück 1907: 13):
In the passive, only the structural accusative can be the nominative subject; the dative
remains: naudibandjom eisarneinaim gabundans was (Mk 5:4) ‘with chains of iron he
had been bound’.
Ga-ïbnjan* (1x) ‘make even; level’: airþai þuk gaïbnjand (Lk 19:44) ‘they (will) level
you to the ground, lay you even with the ground’.
1.ga-kunnan* (4x, 1 dupl) ‘concede, submit’ generally takes an accusative object,
e.g. alla gakunnun sik (1Cor 15:28A) ‘all things subject themselves’ (i.e. ‘are subjected’).
In one passage, the object is ufhnaiweins* ‘subjection’ and an indirect object is
164 Case functions
present: þaimei nih eilohun gakunþedum ufhnaiwein (Gal 2:5A) ‘to whom we did not
concede subjection even for a moment’ (cf. §3.27, end).
Ga-lausjan ‘free, release, rescue’ has only one example of a double object: dauþum
uns galausida (2Cor 1:10A/B) ‘saved us from death’. Elsewhere this verb occurs with af
or us. In one other passage, the double object occurs passivized (§4.55).
Ga-teihan* (29x, 2 dupl) ‘report, tell’, e.g. gataihun imma allata (Mk 6:30) ‘they told
him everything’, gataih fraujin seinamma þata (Lk 14:21) ‘he reported this to his
master’, as gataih þus þata namo (Bl 2r.23) ‘who told you the name?’.
Kannjan (10x, 3 dupl) ‘cause to be known, reveal’ (caus to 1.kunnan ‘know’) occurs
three times as a dat-acc verb, e.g. kanneiþ izwis allata (Eph 6:31B) ‘reveals to you
everything’.31 By contrast, ga-kannjan (13x, 4 dupl) ‘id.’ is more frequent as an acc-
dat verb, e.g. all izwis gakannjand (Col 4:9A/B) ‘they reveal everything to you’ and,
with null accusative object: as | gakannida þus (Bl 2r.23f.) ‘who revealed (the name)
to you?’. In both the optional experiencer is in the dative (García García 2003: 380;
2004: 324).
Leikan* ‘please’ is ditransitive in one of its two occurrences:
(134) swaswe ik allaim all leika (1Cor 10:33A)
just.as I all.dat.pl.m all.acc.sg.n please.1sg
‘even as I please everyone in everything’
This is a result of a causative feature {cause xtheme please yexper}, lit. ‘I cause everything
to be pleasing to everyone’.
Qiþan ‘say, tell’ is the best-attested verb in Gothic but rarely ditransitive, e.g. a qiþau
izwis (1Cor 11:22A) ‘what shall I say to you?’, saei ubil qiþai attin seinamma (Mk 7:10)
‘who speaks evil to (i.e. curses) his father’; skal þus a qiþan (Lk 7:40) ‘I must tell you
something’; cf. also—
(135) saiƕ ei mannhun ni qiþais waiht
see.2sg.impv comp any.man:dat.sg neg say.2sg.opt thing.acc.sg
‘see that you do not say a thing to anyone’ (Mk 1:44)
It is more frequent for the dative object to be replaced by a PP with du ‘to’ (§6.9).
Spillon* (5x, 1 dupl) ‘report, tell’: spillo izwis faheid mikila (Lk 2:10) ‘I announce to
you great joy’, waurda meina spillodedun imma (Neh 6:19) ‘reported my words to him’.
Taiknjan* (4x) ‘show’, e.g. sa izwis taikneiþ kelikn mikilata (Mk 14:15) ‘he will show
you a large upper room’.
Uf-hnaiwjan (6x, 2 dupl) ‘subject (to)’ can be a double object verb, e.g. ufhnaiwjan
sis alla (Phil 3:21A/B) ‘to subject everything to himself ’.
31 The Greek versions attest pánta hūmĩn gnōrísei [all things to you he will reveal] and pánta gnōrísei
hūmĩn [all things he will reveal to you], both different from the Gothic order. Since this is also a possible
order in Greek, Snædal (2007: 95) suggests that the Gothic preserves the linearization of the Vorlage even
when it appears not to be attested in any extant version or apparatus of the critical editions.
4.52 Accusative-dative verbs 165
Us-giban (21x, 2 dupl) ‘pay’ is not exclusively dat-acc. For acc-dat, cf. andalauni
usgiban fadreinam (1Tim 5:4A/B) ‘to pay recompense to the ancestors’, usgibiþ þo
kaisaris kaisara (Mk 12:17) ‘pay those (things which are) Caesar’s to Caesar’.
Us-kannjan (2x, 1 dupl) ‘reveal, commend’ as a double object verb occurs only as
acc-dat: uns silbans uskannjaima izwis (2Cor 5:12A/B) ‘(that we not) (re)commend
ourselves to you’.
Us-sakan* ‘present’ is a hapax: ussok im aiwaggeli (Gal 2:2A/B) ‘I presented to them
the gospel’. In-sakan* (5x, 1 dupl) ‘point out’ has two complements only once, and the
order is acc-dat: þata insakands broþrum (1Tim 4:6A/B) ‘pointing this out to the
brethren’. Sakan (§5.10) ‘argue, rebuke’ is never ditransitive.
Compare 1.saljan (App.) ‘sacrifice’, e.g. hunsla saljan guda (Jn 16:2) ‘to offer sacrifices
to God’ (Gk. latreíān ‘service’ Sturtevant 1930: 112f.); ga-saljan* (3x) ‘sacrifice’ (§4.55).
Blandan (3x, 1 dupl) ‘mingle’, refl ‘associate oneself (with)’ takes miþ with human
pronouns (2Thess 3:14A/B) or a sociative dative: ni blandaiþ izwis horam (1Cor 5:9A)
‘do not associate (yourselves) with adulterers’ (§9.51; Winkler 1896: 85; GCS 102).
Ga-haitan in the sense of ‘promise’ can take two objects, e.g. missade|de aflet þaim
ain| falþaba gawand|jandam ga-haihait (Sk 3.3.15–18) ‘he promised forgiveness of
misdeeds to those simply reforming’.
Ga-lewjan (16x) ‘hand over, betray’, e.g. ei galewidedi ina im (Mk 14:10) ‘to betray
him to them’, sa galewjands mik þus (Jn 19:11) ‘the one delivering me to you’.
Ga-mitan* (1x) ‘measure, apportion’: þoei gamat unsis guþ (2Cor 10:13B) ‘which
God measured to us’.
166 Case functions
The verb is classified as acc-dat on the assumption that arbaiþs ‘work; hardship’ would
be accusative, were it not for the negative partitive construction (§4.28). Incidentally,
MS A apparently has the same reading, although most of it is restored.
Ga-wadjon* (1x) ‘promise in marriage’: gawadjoda auk izwis ainamma waira (2Cor
11:2B) ‘for I betrothed you to one man’.
Ga-wargjan* ‘condemn’ occurs 3x (incl. 3sg gawargeiþ Bl 2r.25), but only once
with two objects: gawargjand ina dauþau (Mk 10:33) ‘they (shall) condemn him
to death’.
Giban ‘give’ also attests dat-acc order:
(138) ga-haihaitun imma faihu giban (Mk 14:11)
prfx-promise.3pl.pret he.dat.sg money.acc.sg give.inf
‘they promised to give him money’
(139) haunidaim gibiþ anst (Bl 2r.9)
humble.PPP.dat.pl.m give.3sg grace.acc.sg.f
‘to the humble God gives grace’
Like Eng. give, it can be accompanied by a thematic object in the accusative, a recipient
in the dative, both, or neither:
(140) ni swaswe so manaseþs gibiþ, ik giba izwis (Jn 14:27)
neg just.as d world.nom give.3sg I give.1sg you.dat.pl
‘not as the world gives, I give to you’
For the accusative alone, cf. gaf akran (Mk 4:8) ‘it gave fruit’.
Fra-giban in the sense of ‘forgive’ behaves the same, with dative of the person,
accusative of the thing.
(141) Fragibiþ mis þata skaþis (2Cor 12:13A/B)
‘forgive me this wrong’
An example of dative alone is Xristus fragaf izwis (Col 3:13B) ‘Christ forgave you’;
accusative alone: jabai a fragaf (2Cor 2:10A) ‘if I forgave anything’.
The same construction is found with fra-giban in the sense of ‘bestow (on)’: blin-
daim managaim fragaf siun (Lk 7:21) ‘on many blind (people) he (Jesus) bestowed
sight’; siun ‘sight’ renders a Greek articular infinitive tò blépein ‘to see, seeing; sight’,
(pre-)Vulg. vīsum ‘sight’, among other readings (cf. VL 1976: 76).
In-sandjan ‘send’ normally takes an accusative object and a PP, but rarely takes a
dative of the person to whom someone or something is sent, e.g. þanei ik insandja
izwis fram attin (Jn 15:26) ‘whom I (will) send to you from the father’.
4.52 Accusative-dative verbs 167
Manwjan ‘prepare’: beside acc-dat manwjan stad izwis (Jn 14:2) ‘to prepare a place
for you’, dat-acc occurs: manwja izwis stad (Jn 14:3) ‘I prepare you a place’.
Meljan (22x, 7 dupl) ‘write; enroll’ can take dative of the person, accusative of the
thing, or both, e.g. þo samona izwis meljan (Phil 3:1A/B) ‘to write the same things to
you’. The same is true of ga-meljan (freq) ‘write; register, enroll’, e.g. gamelida izwis þo
anabusn (Mk 10:5) ‘(Moses) wrote for you this law’. The personal passive of meljan has
the meaning ‘enroll’: ei melidai weseina (Lk 2:3) ‘that they may be registered’.
Rahnjan* (14x, 4 dupl) ‘reckon, count, consider, regard’ is usually an acc-acc verb
(§4.53), but can also be either acc-dat (142) or dat-acc (143).
(142) þata mis rahnei (Philem 18)
D.acc.sg.n I.dat count.2sg.impv
‘charge that to me’
[Gk. toũto emoì ellógei, Lat. hoc mihi imputā ‘id.’]
In both of these the verb has a causative feature and a different meaning, ‘charge’,
which derives from the causative feature {cause xtheme count ygoal}. The verb choice
in Gothic and the linearization in both examples are direct calques on the Greek.
Rodjan (freq) ‘speak, tell’ can have dative of the person, accusative of the thing, or
both, e.g. þata rodida izwis (Jn 14:25, 15:11, 16:1, 4, 6, 33) ‘this I told you’.
Salbon (5x, 1 dupl) ‘anoint’ can be dat-acc: alewa haubid meinata ni salbodes (Lk 7:46)
‘you did not anoint my head with (olive) oil’, as well as acc-dat: salboda fraujan
balsana (Jn 11:2) ‘anointed the Lord with ointment’.
Ur-raisjan (27x, 2 dupl) ‘raise (up), stir up’ is questionable as a double object verb.
In most of its occurrences it has a single accusative complement. One of the three
examples that looks like acc-dat is urraisjan barna Abrahama (Lk 3:8) ‘to raise chil-
dren for Abraham’. The dative here and in Lk 1:69, 20:28, can be a simple benefactive,
no different in terms of valence from the locatival dative in aglons urraisjan bandjom
meinaim (Phil 1:17B) ‘to stir up troubles in my bonds’.
Wairpan (13x) ‘throw’ can take accusative of the person thrown at and dative of the
instrument thrown: þana stainam wairpandans (Mk 12:4) ‘pelting him with stones’; cf.
af-wairpan (4x, 1 dupl): so managei stainam afwairpiþ unsis (Lk 20:6) ‘the crowd will
stone us to death’ (lit. ‘will cast us off with stones’). So also af-wairpan* in the sense of
‘pelt (with), throw at’, e.g. sokidedun þuk afwairpan stainam Iudaieis (Jn 11:8) ‘the Jews
sought to pelt you with stones’ (i.e. ‘to stone you’). Wairpan can also take an acctheme–
datgoal frame: ni goþ ist niman hlaib barne jah wairpan hundam (Mk 7:27) ‘it is not
good to take children’s bread and throw (it) to the dogs’. For dyadic wairpan see §4.44.
168 Case functions
wasjan* (7x) and ga-wasjan* (16x, 1 dupl) ‘dress, clothe’ can take accusative of the
person and instrumental dative of the garb (cf. García García 2003: 383ff.; 2004: 327f.),
e.g. gawasidedun ina paurpurai (Mk 15:17) ‘they clothed him with purple’; and-wasjan*
(1x) ‘undress’ takes accusative of the person and ablatival dative of the garb, e.g. and-
wasidedun ina þizai paurpurai jah gawasidedun ina wastjom swesaim (Mk 15:20) ‘they
stripped him of that purple and dressed him with his own clothes’ (Rousseau 2011: 318;
2012: 154).
Laisjan ‘to teach’ is the only verb listed by Ferraresi that takes accusative of both the
person and the thing taught (2005: 64). Even if only the person is present, it goes into
the accusative case.32
(144) swaswe laisida mik atta meins (Jn 8:28)
just.as teach.3sg.pret I.acc.sg father.nom.sg my.nom.sg.m
‘as my father taught me’
32 Laisjan has different properties from the other verbs in this section because one can teach someone
or something. It is frequently a double accusative verb in other ancient IE languages (Hock 2014), and
even within Gothic the other verbs have different properties, such as a subject-predicate relation, illus-
trated below. Thanks to Hans Henrich Hock for discussion of this section.
4.53 Accusative-accusative verbs 169
Namnjan* (11x, 5 dupl) ‘name, call’ can take two accusatives (e.g. Delbrück 1907:
76), e.g. þanzei jah apaustuluns namnida (Lk 6:13) ‘whom he also named apostles’. The
passive is attested in jabai as broþar namnids sijai hors (1Cor 5:11A) ‘if anyone called
a brother should be an adulterer’.
Qiþan ‘say, tell’ can also rarely mean ‘call’, in which case it takes two accusatives, e.g.
jabai jainans qaþ guda (Jn 10:35) ‘if he called them gods’. The dative in (148) depends
on taujan ‘do’ (§9.33).
(148) ƕa nu wileiþ ei taujau þamm-ei qiþiþ
what now want.2pl comp do.1sg.opt dat.sg.m-rel call.2pl
þiudan Iudaie (Mk 15:12)
king.acc.sg Jew.gen.pl
‘what then do you want me to do with the one you call king of the Jews?’
Rahnjan* (14x, 4 dupl) ‘reckon, count, consider’ is most frequently an acc-acc verb.
The structure is a small clause (SC). In a configuration like count / consider [xy], the
[xy] constituent is an SC, because (among other reasons) there is no entailment that
x is counted or considered. The entire SC, not x, receives a thematic role from the
matrix verb. It must also be mentioned that only constituent structure and not linear-
ization is at issue in [xy], and that in Gothic if y is a noun, the SC particle (SC ptc) ‘as’
is present. The SC ptc is generally a pro-verb, in complementary distribution with be;
cf. Eng. regard him as an enemy = regard him to be an enemy.33
(149) triggwana mik rahnida (1Tim 1:12B)
trusty.acc.sg.m I.acc count.3sg.pret
‘he considered me trustworthy’
[Gk. pistón me hēg sato, Lat. fidēlem mē exīstimāvit ‘id.’]
Although fijand could be dative, the norm in this construction is double accusative,
as also in the Greek and Latin versions.
Sai an ‘see’ can take a small clause with no particle, e.g. an . . . þuk se um gast
(Mt 25:38C) ‘when did we see you (to be) a stranger?’, an . . . þuk se um siukana
(Mt 25:39C) ‘when did we see you sick?’.
Verbs of possession admit several double accusative constructions. From haban
‘have’, there is the result state structure habai mik faur-qiþanana [have me excused]
(Lk 14:18, 19) ‘excuse me’, þans swaleikans swerans habaiþ (Phil 2:29A/B) ‘hold such
(people) honored’ (i.e. in high esteem), ‘honor such people’. Aigan* ‘possess, have’
admits appositional complements, e.g. attan aigum Abraham (Lk 3:8) ‘we have
Abraham as our father’.
Verbs of the make/cause class can take a double accusative, e.g. mannan hailana
gatawida (Jn 7:23) ‘I made a man whole’, þiudan sik silban taujiþ (Jn 19:12) ‘makes
himself king’. In the sense of ‘do’, an acc-dat complement is found: þata allata
taujand izwis (Jn 15:21) ‘all this they (will) do to you’.
Like taujan is waurkjan ‘work; make, cause’, e.g. raihtos waurkeiþ staigos gudis
(Mk 1:3 ~ Lk 3:4 . . . is) ‘make straight God’s (~ his) paths’.
Briggan ‘bring’ can also mean ‘make’, and in this sense takes a double accusa-
tive, e.g. wairþans brāhta uns andbahtans (2Cor 3:6B) ‘he made us worthy minis-
ters’, frijana brāhta mik (Rom 8:2A) ‘has made me free’, sunus izwis frijans briggiþ
(Jn 8:36) ‘the son will set you free’. The last two are nothing like the Gk. ēleuthérōsen
‘freed’, eleuther sēi ‘should free’, or Lat. līberāvit ‘freed’, līberāverit ‘shall have
liberated’.
Domjan ‘deem’ can take a double accusative, e.g. jūzei garaihtans domeiþ izwis
silbans (Lk 16:15) ‘you who deem yourselves just’.
Only three verbs are listed by Ferraresi (2005: 64) as belonging to this class: bid(j)an
‘beg, ask for’, fraihnan ‘ask’, both with gen of the inquiry and acc of the person, and
(ga)fulljan* ‘fill’. In Gothic the goal is accusative and the theme genitive (cf. Ferraresi
4.54 Accusative-genitive verbs 171
2005: 75), the latter even if only the theme argument is present: is bidjau? . . . haubidis
Iohannis (Mk 6:24) ‘what shall I ask for?’ . . . ‘John’s head’.
And-þagkjan* (3x) ‘think of ’: andþaggk|jandins sik is | waldufneis (Sk 7.1.3ff.)
‘considering his authority’.
Bid(j)an ‘ask’: jabai is bidjiþ mik (Jn 14:14) ‘if you ask me anything’, bidei mik
þis izuh þei wileis (Mk 6:22) ‘ask me whatsoever you want’.34
Fraihnan is well attested, e.g. is mik fraihnis (Jn 18:21) ‘what are you asking me?’.
Otherwise there is only one example of the double object construction:
(153) fraihna izwis jah ik ainis waurdis (Lk 20:3)
ask.1sg you.acc.pl also I one.gen.sg word.gen.sg
‘I will also ask you one thing’
[Gk. erōt sō hūmãs ka’g héna lógon ‘also I will ask you one word’,
Lat. interrogābō vōs et ego ūnum verbum ‘also I will ask you one word’]
There is a minor variant with the order . . . jah ik izwis . . . (Mk 11:29). Both objects in
the Greek and Latin texts are in the accusative.
For a verb of the ‘fill’ class, cf. (154).
(154) ga-fulljands swam akeitis (Mk 15:36)
prfx-filling.nom.sg.m sponge.acc.sg.m vinegar.gen.sg
‘filling a sponge with vinegar’
[Gk. gemísās spóggon [acc] óxous [gen],
Lat. implēns spongiam [acc] acētō [abl] ‘id.’]
Ga-maudjan* (4x, 1 dupl) ‘remind’ takes acc of the person (e.g. gamaudja þuk
2Tim 1:6A/B ‘I remind you’), gen of the thing (þize <þizei> gamaudei 2Tim 2:14B
‘keep reminding [people] of these things’), and 1x both: gamaudeiþ izwis allis (Jn 14:26)
‘he will remind you of everything’ (García García 2004: 326f.).
Hailjan (6x) ‘heal’ takes acc of the person (hailjan ins [Lk 5:17] ‘to heal them’) or of
the thing: hailjan sauhtins (Mk 3:15) ‘to heal diseases’. In one passage it takes acc
of the person and ablatival (privative) gen (Bernhardt 1882: 17) of the thing: hailjan
sik sauhte seinaizo (Lk 6:18) ‘to heal themselves of their diseases’, i.e. ‘to be healed of
their diseases’. The more frequent ga-hailjan (13x) ‘heal, cure’ behaves the same but
instead of a genitive of the disease, in one passage uses a PP: gahailida managans af
sauhtim (Lk 7:21) ‘cured many of diseases’ (cf. Zych 1981: 42f.).
34 Bid(j)an has also been claimed to be a double accusative verb because of þis ah þei bidjais mik
(Mk 6:23) ‘whatsoever you may ask me’, þis ah þei bidjis guþ (Jn 11:22) ‘whatsoever you ask God’, þis ah
þei bidjiþ attan (Jn 16:23) ‘whatsoever you ask the father’, etc., but the passages continue with verbs that
take accusative: giba þus (Mk 6:23) ‘I will give you’, gibiþ izwis (Jn 15:23) ‘he will give you’, gibiþ þus guþ
(Jn 11:22) ‘God will give you’. Sturtevant (1931: 63f.) suggests relative attraction for these examples, but in
free relatives the more oblique case takes priority (§9.38). Also, bid(j)an frequently takes accusative
objects, and þis ah may have had a genitival origin (§3.20). Verbs of the asking class have notoriously
variable properties in other IE languages (Hock 2014).
172 Case functions
The general rule is that only the accusative constituent of a double object verb can
appear as the nominative subject of a corresponding passive sentence. In practical
terms, this means that whatever appears in the dative or genitive in an active sentence
cannot be the nominative subject of a passive.
Accusative-dative/dative-accusative verbs
Af-hlaþan* (1x) ‘load down’ occurs only in the passive, but it is clear that the instru-
mental dative remains: qineina afhlaþana frawaurhtim (2Tim 3:6A/B) ‘women laden
with sins’.
Af-letan ‘forgive’ has many passives, and only the structural accusative object of the
active sentence can be the passive subject. The dative of the person forgiven remains,
as is also true of fra-letan in the sense of ‘forgive’:
(155) afletanda þus frawaurhteis (Mt 9:5, Mk 2:5, 9, Lk 5:23+ [8x])
forgive.3pl.pass you.dat.sg sin.nom.pl
‘sins are forgiven (to) you’
(156) þamm-ei leitil fraletada, leitil frijod (Lk 7:47)
dat.sg.m-rel little forgive.3sg.pass little love.3sg
‘(one) to whom little is forgiven, loves little’
Gothic permits nothing like Eng. you are forgiven (your) sins. It is clear from the verb
agreement in (155) that þus is not a quirky subject.
Af-niman in the sense of ‘take (x) from (y)’ takes dative complements depending on
af ‘from’ (§6.43), and this dative obligatorily remains in the passive: þatei habaiþ, afn-
imada imma (Mk 4:25) ‘what he has will be taken from him’. Nonstructural accounts
(e.g. Vogel 2000: 13) are wide of the mark.
At-augjan ‘show’ occurs four times in the passive (Mk 9:4, 16:12S, 1Cor 15:5A, 1Tim
3:16A) in the meaning ‘appear’. The accusative object of the active sentence is the sub-
ject of the passive, and the dative remains, e.g. ataugiþs warþ im Helias (Mk 9:4) ‘Elijah
appeared (lit. was shown) to them’.
Dragkjan* [cause to drink] ‘give someone (something) to drink’ occurs only
with a single acc object, e.g. dragkei ina (Rom 12:20A/C) [drink him] ‘give him
(something) to drink’, except in the sole passive: allai ainamma ahmin dragkidai
sijum (1Cor 12:13A) ‘we were all given the one spirit to drink’, in which the
recipient is in the nom, matching the acc object in the active, and the oblique
dative remains. The Greek text has variation: pántes (eis) hèn pneũma epotísthēmen
‘we were all made to drink (into) one spirit’, Lat. omnēs in ūnō spīritū pōtātī
sumus ‘we were all made to drink in one spirit’. Presumably the Gothic was
translating the Greek version without eis ‘into’. Gadragkjan* (2x) occurs once
with a double object: gadragkjai izwis stikla (Mk 9:41) ‘shall give you
4.55 Passivization of double object verbs 173
a cup of water’, in which the recipient is acc and the dat stikla may be instrumental
(García García 2003: 378f.).
Ga-lausjan ‘release’ occurs passivized one time and the dative remains: galausiþs is
qenai (1Cor 7:27A) ‘are you free/divorced from a wife?’.
Ga-saljan* ‘sacrifice’ is passivized in such a way that the dative remains: galiugam
gasaliþ ist (1Cor 10:28A) ‘it is sacrificed to idols’.
Ga-teihan* ‘report, tell’ keeps the dative in the passive: was imma gataihan fram
ahmin (Lk 2:26) ‘it had been revealed to him by the spirit’, gataihan warþ imma
(Lk 8:20) ‘it was told to him’.
Ga-trauan* in the sense of ‘entrust’ is ditransitive and only the structural accusative
can be the nominative subject of the passive, e.g. þatei gatrauaiþ ist mis (1Tim 1:11B)
‘which has been entrusted to me’.
Giban ‘give’: the dative person is never the passive subject. Gothic has nothing like
I was given the book (cf. Vogel 2000: 10).
(157) ei mis gibaidau waurd (Eph 6:19B)
comp I.dat.sg give.3sg.opt.pass word.nom.sg.n
‘that the word(s) may be given to me’
Kannjan and ga-kannjan ‘make known, reveal’ attest one passive each, and the
dative of the person to whom the revelation is made remains as such:
(159) gakannida was mis so rūna (Eph 3:3B)
revealed.nom.sg.f was I.dat D.nom.sg.f secret.nom.sg.f
‘the mystery was revealed to me’
Manwjan ‘prepare’ has one passive and the entity, not the dative person, is the
nominative subject: þaimei manwiþ was (Mk 10:40) ‘for whom it was prepared’.
Qiþan ‘say, tell’ retains the dative in the passive: þarei qiþada im (Rom 9:26A)
‘where it was (lit. is) said to them’.
Rodjan ‘speak, tell’ allows only structural accusatives to be passive subjects, e.g. þoei
rodida wesun bi ina (Lk 2:33) ‘(those things) that were said about him’, þata waurd
þatei rodiþ was du im (Lk 2:17) ‘the word that had been spoken to them’.
Uf-hnaiwjan ‘subject (to)’ occurs passivized only once and the accusative object of
the active is the nominative subject: alla ufhnaiwida sind (1Cor 15:27A) ‘all things are
subjected (to him)’. Unfortunately, the dative of the person is not spelled out.
174 Case functions
Wasjan* and ga-wasjan* ‘dress, clothe’ attest several passives and it is invariably the
structural accusative that corresponds to the nominative subject of the passive, the
instrumental dative remaining as such, e.g. þaiei hnasqjaim wasidai sind (Mt 11:8)
‘those who are clad with refined (raiment)’, gawasids was paurpaurai (Lk 16:19) ‘he (the
rich man) was dressed in purple’, was . . . Iohannes gawasiþs taglam ulbandaus (Mk 1:6)
‘John was dressed in camel’s hair [clothes]’, coordinated by acc: jah gairda filleina bi
hup seinana ‘and a leather belt around his waist’, supposedly in imitation of the Greek
accusative of respect (e.g. Wolfe 2011: 616), but a Gothic accusative absolute cannot be
ruled out.
Accusative-genitive verbs
For acc-gen verbs, the genitive complement cannot be the nominative subject of
a passive.
Since fraihnan ‘ask’ attests only one passive form, fraihans (Lk 17:20) ‘(having been)
asked’, passivization of the double object construction cannot be tested.
For verbs of the ‘fill’ class, examples of the passive are sparse, but it appears that
only structural accusative objects can be passive nominative subjects.
(161) ahmins weihis ga-fulljada (Lk 1:15)
spirit.gen.sg holy.gen.sg.m prfx-fill.3sg.pass
‘he will be filled with the holy spirit’
Accusative-accusative verbs
With acc-acc verbs, no oblique case is present in the active sentence. Both accusa-
tives may be structural, but, unlike some languages where either structural object can
be the nominative subject of the passive, in Gothic only the highest DP/NP can move
to subject position. With haitan ‘call’, for instance, in a configuration {call x y}, only
the first object (x of {call x y}) can be the nominative subject of a passive, the y con-
stituent being a predicate nominative.
The new ana-namnjan* ‘to surname’ (cf. namnjan* ‘name, call’) attests a passive:
saei ananam(n)[ja]da paitrus (Bl 1v.26) ‘who is surnamed Peter’ (Falluomini 2017).
As with other double object verbs, extraction in the passive of a double accusative
small clause is limited to the highest (x) constituent of the [xy] configuration:
(164) rahnidai wesum swe lamba slauhtais (Rom 8:36A)
counted.nom.pl.m be.1pl.pret as sheep.nom.pl slaughter.gen.sg
‘we were counted/regarded as sheep for the slaughter’
[Gk. elogísthēmen hōs próbata sphagẽs,
Lat. aestimātī sumus sīcut ovēs occīsiōnis ‘id.’]
The y constituent remains along with the small clause particle swe ‘as’, identical to the
construction in most Greek and Latin versions (Gk. hōs, Lat. sīcut ‘as’).
Wailamerjan (13x, 1 dupl) ‘preach good news’ in one passage has a dat and acc
object: wailamerjan þus þata (Lk 1:19) ‘to preach to you this (good news)’. Normally, it
has only an accusative or a dative object, and either one can be the nominative subject
of the passive: þiudangardi gudis wailamerjada (Lk 16:16) ‘(the good news of) the
kingdom of God is preached’, unledai wailamerjanda (Mt 11:5) ‘the poor are preached
(the good news) to’. The second is allowed because there is no thematic object present
and the verb behaves as a simple dative-complement verb.35
To conclude this section, Gothic seems to have had only one structural accusative
case (that being impossible to test), the second accusative being oblique because only
the former (the highest) can move to subject position in a passive sentence. This in
turn suggests that the other oblique cases, which can become nominative in monotran-
sitive passives, were predictable (inherent) rather than lexical cases. Lexical cases are
by definition not predictable and therefore do not become nominative in a passive
sentence (Lee-Schoenfeld & Diewald 2017).
Given the likelihood that Gothic had one structural nominative (subject) case and
one structural accusative (object) case, the inherent case objects of monotransitive
verbs can become structural nominative because structural case is not exhausted. For
ditransitives, structural case is used up on the subject and (higher) accusative object,
entailing that only that one can become the nominative subject of a passive.
Phrased less speculatively, one can merely stipulate that only the highest object of a
ditransitive verb can become a nominative passive. On this account, the rationale
becomes one of accessibility rather than case theory.
35 Hans Henrich Hock (p.c.) suggests that wailamerjan would not be exceptional if the two examples
with izwis (1Cor 15:2A, Eph 2:17A/B) were construed as accusative. That would make wailamerjan a
(variable) double object verb. The fact remains that in unambiguous examples, the oblique object is dative,
and the verb is never passivized with two objects.
CH APTER 5
5.1 Introduction
Verbs in Gothic are inflected for first, second, and third person, singular, dual, and
plural number. There is no third person dual because nouns and third person pro-
nouns lost the dual. Tenses are restricted to past/preterite and nonpast.1 There are two
inflected moods, indicative and optative (called subjunctive in some works), and two
voices (active, passive). The IE mediopassive is best preserved in Gothic as a synthetic
passive, but only in the nonpast indicative and optative. The past system features two
periphrastic passives. Middle functions are mostly represented by simple reflexive
structures and -nan verbs. Nonfinite categories include one voice-underspecified
infinitive, a nonpast and past participle, the former active, the latter passive on transi-
tive bases (Gering 1874: 299f.; Suzuki 1989: 35), and a present active imperative. The
third person imperative is normally expressed by an optative.2 Verbs follow three
main classes: thematic, athematic, and preterite present. Verbs are also classified as
strong or weak.
1 Much has been written on futurity in Gothic (e.g. Marold 1875, Cuendet 1924, Davis 1929, Ambrosini
1965, Martellotti 1975, Meerwein 1977, Morris 1990, Coleman 1996, Wood 2002, Wells 2009, Kleyner
2015, Rousseau 2016: 249–60). In Mark, 64 Greek futures are translated by a nonpast 63x, 33 prefixed
(Wood 2002: 76); likewise, 93 Greek aorists with fut meaning, 48 prefixed (ibid. 81). Wairþan ‘get to be’
can form a (prophetic) future of wisan ‘to be’ (§5.7). See also du-ginnan (§5.7), haban (§5.17), skulan
(§5.30).
2 Gothic attests only three 3rd person imperatives: atsteigadau (Mt 27:42, Mk 15:32) ‘let him climb
down’, lausjadau (Mt 27:43) ‘let him free/rescue’, liugandau (1Cor 7:9A) ‘let them marry’ (GE 206; Cuendet
1924: 82ff., 109–12; Markey 1972), used when the speaker does not want the event to occur (Cowgill 1985;
thanks to Patrick Stiles, p.c.). Markey takes -au from the mediopassive, Suzuki (1984) extends -u to the
impv and medpass, Melazzo (2015b) invokes a particle, but western IE had a 3rd person impv *-o(n)tou.
With Goth. 3pl -andau cf. OIr. berat ‘let them carry’ < *bhérontou (LHE 181, LHE2 206, LIPP 2.820, w. lit).
Classes 1–4 have a subclass with breaking, e.g. 1b lei an, *lái , *laí um, *laí ans
‘loan’, 2b tiuhan, -táuh, (-taúhun), taúhans ‘lead’, 3b waírþan, warþ, waúrþum,
waúrþans ‘get to be’, 4b baíran, bar, berum, -baúrans ‘bear’.
Such alternations occur in other IE languages, e.g. Gk. leípō ‘I leave’, léloipa ‘I have
left’, élipon ‘I left’. Germanic productively regularized ablaut to indicate tense: e-grade
present, o-grade pret sg, zero-grade pret pl (plus lengthened-grade subsystem) and
P(P)P with e-grade subsystem (Laker 1997; Mailhammer 2007; Mottausch 2013;
Harðarson 2017: 931–5).
Table 5.1 contains a synopsis of the strong verb classes; sample paradigm in §5.3.
Synchronic analyses abound (e.g. Buckalew 1964; Campanile 1970a; Beade 1973;
Wurzel 1975: 318–22; Zukoff & Sandell 2015; Zukoff 2017: ch. 4). Despite selectional
problems (Wienold 1970), all assume a basic vowel or diphthong plus changes in the
preterite and P(P)P.
Gothic retained reduplication in twenty-one class 7 verbs (Bennett 1967b), which
includes a subclass with ablaut: -letan, laílot ‘let’, -tekan, taítok ‘touch’, etc. The redupli-
cating syllable copies the first onset consonant with the vowel / / <ai> (Kozianka
2004), e.g. gretan ‘weep’ : gaígrot ‘wept’, slepan* ‘sleep’ : saíslep ‘slept’; s + stop redupli-
cates intact: skáidan ‘divide’ : -skaískáid ‘divided’. In the absence of an onset, only the
reduplicating vowel is found: áukan* ‘increase’ : (ana)aiáuk ‘added’.
The rest of Germanic has but relics, such as Old English (Anglian, poetry, isolated
in West Saxon) heht (Goth. haíháit) vs. West Saxon hēt ‘named, called’, leolc [poetry],
liolc [Boethius 1x] (Goth. laíláik) vs. WS lēk ‘played’ (Wood 1895: 31–43; Meillet 1909;
Flasdieck 1936: 254f.; Laker 1997: 167–74; Jasanoff 2007; Moon 2010; LHE2 278f.).
3 The only occurrence of this word requires a more specific meaning: ni faraiþ [2pl opt] us garda in
gard (Lk 10:7) ‘do not keep relocating from house to house’ = Gk. mē metabaínete ‘do not pass over, change
course’, Lat. nōlīte trānsīre / migrāre ‘do not cross over / move, migrate’ (cf. Götti 1974: 87).
178 The verbal system
Nonpast
Preterite
sg 1 nam -nemjáu
2 namt nemeis
3 nam nemi
du 1 *nemu *nemeiwa
2 nemuts* *nemeits
pl 1 nemum nemeima*
2 nemuþ nemeiþ*
3 nemun nemeina
Passive forms are frequent only in the third person. For non-3rd person forms cf. 1sg
pass fraqimada ‘I will be consumed’ (2Cor 12:15A/B), wrikada ‘I am persecuted’ (Gal
5:11B), and the weak frijoda ‘I am loved’ (2Cor 12:15A/B); 2sg pass haitaza ‘you will be
called’ (Lk 1:76), usmaitaza ‘you will be cut off ’ (Rom 11:22A). More frequent are the
1 and 2 plural passives in the indicative and the singular optative forms (GG 148).
5.5 Strong class 1 179
Following is an (incomplete) list of strong verbs from each class. Primarily selected
are frequent and rare verbs, and those with multiple prefixes and/or meanings.
beidan* (8x) ‘await, wait for, expect’, *baiþ, *bidum, *bidans, with gen complements,
e.g. wesun auk allai beidandans is (Lk 8:40) ‘for all were waiting for/expecting him’
(cf. §4.29); by contrast, us-beidan* (5x, 1 dupl) ‘expect, await’ takes acc as an effective
verb (Wolf 1915: 23) as does ga-beidan* (1x) ‘endure’: all weneiþ, all ga-beidiþ (1Cor
13:7A) ‘hopes for all, endures all’ (cf. Velten 1930: 502)
digan* ‘knead, form, mold’ (PrP dat sg m digandin Rm 9:30A), daig (Bl 2v.13) ‘fash-
ioned’, *digum, digans (in ga-digans 1Tim 2:13A/<gadigands>B; nom pl n digana
2Tim 2:20B ‘items molded (out of clay)’)
hneiwan (only Lk 9:12) ‘wane, draw to a close’, *hnaiw, hniwun (in us-hniwun Bl 1r.22
‘turned away’ = uswandidedun Sk 1.1.3; see §§3.31, 5.15; Falluomini 2016a: 285
defends us-hneiwan* as the Wulfilian original), *hniwans
ga-leiþan ‘come, go’, ga-laiþ, ga-liþun, —, plus eight prefixed formations (Götti 1974:
43–61); cf. inn-ga-leiþan ‘go into’, miþ-inn-ga-leiþan* ‘go in with’ (3sg pret miþ-inn-
galaiþ Jn 18:15); also us-leiþan ‘go out’, 3sg uslaiþ, usliþun, — (Wolf 1915: 16); hindar-
leiþan [go beyond] has only idiomatic meanings: ‘disappear’ (§9.31), ‘come over’ (§9.33)
ur-reisan ‘arise, get up’ (Lk 9:22 ‘arise (from the dead)’, Rom 13:11A ‘rise up (from
sleep)’), 3sg urrais, urrisun (Mt 27:52) ‘arose’, urrisans* (acc sg m urrisanana
Mk 16:14S, 2Tim 2:8B ‘arisen, raised’); urrisanana us dauþaim (2Tim 2:8B) ‘arisen/
raised from (among) the dead’ alternates with the PrP us dauþaim urreisandin
(Rom 7:4A) ‘id.’ (Wolf 1915: 19; GGS 147)
speiwan (Mk 14:65) ‘spit’, ga-spaiw (Jn 9:6), spiwun (Mt 26:67C) / bi-spiwun (Mk 15:19)
‘spit on’, *spiwans; a supposed idiomatic prefixed form is 2pl pret and-spiwuþ ‘you
despised’ (Bucsko 2011: 80), but and imparts a holistic interpretation (§6.6), hence
the metaphorical ‘you spit (covering [someone] completely)’, i.e. ‘you dissed (some-
one) out and out’
steigan ‘climb’ (in us-steigan Jn 6:62 ‘ascend’; unprefixed only 3sg steigiþ Jn 10:1
‘climbs’), at-staig (Jn 6:38, 42) ‘I came down’ / 3sg at-staig (6x) (cf. us-staig 3x /
ustaig 2x), ga-stigun (Jn 6:24) ‘they got (into boats)’ / ufar-stigun (Mk 4:7) ‘grew up/
over’ / us-stigun (Jn 6:17) ‘climbed up (onto the boat)’, *stigans; for functions with
four prefixes see Götti (1974: 82–6)
ga-teihan* ‘announce, report’, ga-taih (in faura-ga-taih Mk 13:23 ‘I told in advance’;
3sg ga-taih Mk 16:10, Lk 8:47, 14:21, Bl 2r.23), ga-taihun (9x), ga-taihans (Lk 18:14)
‘reported(ly)’
þeihan (Sk 2.3.12) ‘thrive, prosper’, 3sg þaih (Lk 2:52) ‘advanced, increased, grew’,
þaihum* (2pl ga-þaihuþ Phil 4:10B ‘you advanced’), *þaihans; orig. str 3 (VEW
512ff.; Streadbeck 1978: 43)
180 The verbal system
þreihan* ‘press, crowd, throng’, *þraih, þraihun (Mk 5:24, Lk 8:42) ‘crowded, thronged’,
þraihans ‘straitened, narrow’ (Mt 7:14 = Gk. tethlimménē ‘squeezed, compressed,
constricted’); orig. str 3 (VEW 520f.; Streadbeck 1973: 43)
-weitan (in fra-weitan 2Cor 10:6B ‘avenge’: Velten 1930: 344; Bucsko 2011: 96), 3sg in-
wait (4x) ‘paid respect, worshiped’ (Bucsko 2011: 101), in-witun (Mk 9:15 ‘greeted,
saluted’, Mk 15:19 ‘paid (mock) homage’), *-witans; in-weitan* ‘greet (face-to-face)’
differs from goljan (wk 1) ‘salute (at a distance)’ (Barasch 1973: 133)
7x [4 dupl] ‘has ended, finished’), tauhun (Jn 18:28) ‘led’, tauhans was (Lk 4:1) ‘was
led’ / us-tauhans (Lk 6:40 [margin gloss of ga-manwids ‘prepared’], 2Tim 3:17A/B
‘complete, prepared’); PPP nom sg n us-tauhan (Rom 12:2C) ‘perfect(ed)’ renders
Gk. téleios ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 499f.; see §7.18); miþ-ga-tiuhan* ‘lead astray with’ (PPP
nom sg m miþ-ga-tauhans Gal 2:13B) may represent a Gothic ga- verb with miþ
modeled on Gk. sun-ap-ágesthai ‘be led astray also’, but inn-at-tiuhan* ‘bring in’
(3pl pret inn-at-tauhun Lk 2:27) has two prefixes corresponding to one in Gk. eis-
ágein ‘id.’ (Casaretto 2014: 50, 52); tiuhan and its prefixed forms are usually con-
strued with Ps and adverbs meaning ‘to’, rarely ‘from’ (Borrmann 1892: 18)
þliuhan ‘flee’ (Lk 3:7), þlauh (in unþa-þlauh 2Cor 11:33B ‘escaped’ [Sturtevant 1952:
52ff.]; 3sg ga-þlauh Mk 14:52 ‘ran away, fled’), ga-þlauhun (5x), *þlauhans
bindan ‘bind’ (in and-bindan Mk 1:7, Lk 3:16 ‘untie’, ga-bindan Mk 5:3, 4 ‘bind (fast)’
[a margin gloss in 5:4]), 3sg band (in and-band Mk 4:34 ‘revealed’, ga-band
Mk 6:17), bundun (in and-bundun Mk 11:4 ‘untied, released’, ga-bundun Jn 18:12),
bundans (Lk 8:29)—the only unprefixed form (Dorfeld 1885: 13); and-bindan has
two distinct meanings, ‘unbind/untie’ and ‘reveal/explain’ (Bucsko 2011: 117)
drig(g)kan ‘drink’ [optionally tr: Suzuki 1989: 36ff.]: drigkan (4x) ~ driggkan (Mk 10:38),
*dragk, drugkun (3x), drugkans ist (1Cor 11:21A) ‘is drunk’, supposedly based on the
itr alternant, but cf. Lat. pōtus ‘(having) drunk’ etc. (Gering 1874: 301)
filhan (Mt 8:22 ‘bury’, 1Tim 5:25A/B ‘be/remain hidden’; and us-filhan ‘(totally) bury’
[Wolf 1915: 24f.]; ana-filhan 2Cor 3:1A/B ‘commend’), ana-falh (3x, 1 dupl) ‘rented,
delivered, entrusted’, ana-fulhun (5x), ga-fulhans (Lk 16:22) ‘buried’; core mean-
ings of ana-filhan: (i) ‘hand over, entrust’; (ii) ‘pass down (tradition)’ (Wolfe 2006:
208f.); (iii) ‘(re)commend’ (derived: Grünwald 1910: 40); (iv) other idiomatic mean-
ings (Ambrosini 1969: 55–8; Bucsko 2011: 74)
finþan* ‘find out, discover, learn’, 3sg fanþ (Jn 12:9, Rom 10:19A), funþum* (3sg pret
opt funþi Mk 5:43), *funþans
du-ginnan* ‘begin’, 3sg du-gann, du-gunnun, —; denotes inception or futurity
(Meerwein 1977: 22f.; Morris 1990: 86; Rousseau 2012: 89). Infinitival complements
never take ga- (GE 199), are emotive, and the infinitive precedes in a nonsimple
future, e.g. faginon duginna (Phil 1:18B) ‘I rejoice and will keep rejoicing’ (Kleyner
2015: 391–4; cf. Ambrosini 1965: 96)
rinnan* ‘run’, 3sg rann (4x) [1sg ur-rann Jn 8:42, 16:27, 17:8 ‘issued from’ theologically:
Francini 2009: 106; 3sg ur-rann ‘ran out’ but hlauts imma urrann du saljan (Lk 1:9)
‘the lot fell to him to sacrifice’ (Gering 1874: 395)], runnun (in and-runnun Mk 9:34,
Sk 3.1.20 ‘argued, disputed’ [Velten 1930: 497], bi-runnun Jn 10:24 ‘surrounded’, ga-
runnun Mk 14:53, Lk 5:15 ‘gathered’, Jn 12:11 ‘departed’, ur-runnun Mk 8:11, Jn 12:13
‘ran/went out’; cf. 2pl runnuþ Gal 5:7B), runnans* (nom sg f garunnana Mk 1:33
‘gathered’); ga-rinnan* (with ga-2) means ‘win’ (Rousseau 2016: 423, 428, 434); for
the uses of this verb with 8 different prefixes see Götti (1974: 73–81); also noteworthy
182 The verbal system
(2Cor 12:4A/B) ‘got taken up’; note also 3sg opt dis-wilwai (Mk 3:27) ‘may plunder’
(Rolffs 1908: 10f.)
*windan ‘wind, twist, plait’: bi-windan* [wind around] ‘wrap’, 3sg bi-wand (Mt 27:59,
Mk 15:46, Lk 2:7), *bi-wundum (cf. us-wundun Jn 19:2 ‘twisted, plaited’), bi-wundans*
(acc sg n bi-wundan Lk 3:12); for the nonpast system, cf. 3sg du-ga-windiþ sik (2Tim
2:4B) ‘entangles himself, gets entangled (in)’ = Gk. empléketai ‘is entwined, entan-
gled’, Vulg. implicat sē [folds himself in] ‘gets entangled/involved in’ (Velten 1930:
350)4
winnan (4x) ‘endure, suffer’, *wann, wunnum* (2pl wunnuþ 1Thess 2:14B, ga-wunnuþ
Gal 3:4A), —. This verb translates Gk. páskhein ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 350f.) and desig-
nates the activity of suffering vs. þulan, which is used of passive endurance (Lloyd
1979: 260)
bairan ‘bear, carry, bring; endure’ (a widespread semantic clustering: Velten 1930:
502), 3sg bar, berum, -baurans; this verb has many prefixed forms in a variety of
meanings; cf. us-bairan (i) compositional ‘carry out’, (ii) metaphorical ‘produce’,
(iii) idiomatic ‘answer’ (Wolf 1915: 13; Bucsko 2011: 52, 124); note also sauhtins us-
bar (Mt 8:17) ‘bore away (our) diseases’ (Gruber 1930: 21); ga-bairan means both
‘bear’ in the sense of ‘give birth’, e.g. 3sg ga-bairiþ sunu (Bl 2v.8) ‘will bear a son’, 3sg
pret ga-bar sunu (Lk 1:57, 2:7) ‘bore a son’, and, like Lat. cōn-ferre, ‘bring together,
compare’: in ileikai gajukom gabairam þo (Mk 4:30) ‘in what sort of parable shall
we compare it?’ (Velten 1930: 342; NWG 54; Bucsko 2011: 119); inn-at-bairan* (only
3pl pret opt inn-at-bereina Lk 5:18, 19) ‘bring in’ has two prefixes corresponding
to one in Gk. eis-phérein ‘id.’ (Casaretto 2014: 52)
brikan ‘break’ (in uf-brikan Mk 6:26 ‘spurn, reject’, lit. ‘break away from’: Sturtevant
1937: 176; West 1982: 153; Bucsko 2011: 105), ga-brak ‘I broke up’ (Mk 8:19; 3sg brak
Gal 1:23A/B, ga-brak 5x), *brekum, brukans* (nom sg n wk ga-brukano ‘broken up’
1Cor 11:24A); cf. un–uf-brikands* ‘unoffensive, nonobstacle-causing’ (nom pl m
-brikandans 1Cor 10:32A)
niman ‘take, accept, get’, nam, nemum (Lk 5:5) ‘we caught (fish)’, numans (in and-
numans 1Tim 3:16A ‘received’, ga-numans Lk 2:21 ‘conceived’, us-numans Mk 16:19S
‘taken up, received’); this verb has numerous prefixed forms, e.g. dis-niman* ‘pos-
sess’ (PrP nom pl m dis-nimandans 2Cor 6:10A/B: Rolffs 1908: 18; Bucsko 2011: 87);
fra-niman sis þiudangardja (Lk 19:12) ‘receive a kingdom from (someone) to him-
self ’; with ga- ‘take along; receive; conceive [a child]’ (e.g. ganimiþ Bl 2v.7); ‘learn,
4 Velten suggests Latin rather than Greek influence because of the reflexive. This is supported by
another detail. The full Gothic line reads: ni ainshun drauhtinonds fraujin dugawindiþ sik gawaurkjam
þizos aldais (2Tim 2:4B) ‘not anyone in active military service to the Lord entangles himself in the affairs
of this (civilian) life’. Fraujin ‘to the Lord’ and deō (Gk. tōi theõi) ‘to God’ are proper to a few Latin versions
plus the Vulgate and the Ambrosiaster commentary [c4] on the Pauline Epistles. This interpolation is
absent from most Greek MSS and the Byzantine main text.
184 The verbal system
comprehend’ (Elkin 1954: 320ff.; cf. Lloyd 1979: 164; Bucsko 2011: 121); and-niman
‘take (to or upon oneself)’ (e.g. andnimands Lk 19:15, of a kingdom), ‘get back, pay
for’: sa auk skaþula and-nimiþ þatei skoþ (Col 3:25B) ‘for the one doing wrong will
get back (i.e. atone for) what he has done wrong’, etc. (details in Elkin 1954: 317–20;
cf. Velten 1930: 496)
qiman ‘come, arrive’, qam, qemun, qumans (Mk 9:33) ‘arrived’ (cf. Götti 1974: 66).
Qiman can be punctual or telic (Götti 1974: 64f.; Katz 2016) but construal with
locational Ps (Borrmann 1892: 14f.; Streitberg 1914) is not hard and fast (Van der
Meer 1930: 55, 68; Zatočil 1933). Qiman translates forms of érkhesthai ‘come, go’
239x (Francini 2009: 102). Prefixed forms have metaphorical and idiomatic mean-
ings (Bucsko 2011), e.g. us-qiman ‘kill’ (Gruber 1930: 26f.), the means unspecified
(Barasch 1973: 135), lit. ‘(cause to) go out [of life]’ (Wolf 1915: 24; cf. Lloyd 1979:
164; Bucsko 2011: 111). Since qiman is intransitive, the past participle is active,
hence sa us himina qumana (Jn 6:51, Sk 4.3.16f.) [the one come/coming] ‘that came
from heaven’ (Gering 1874: 301; Douse 1886: 262); PP us-quman (1x): praufetum
usquman | warþ (Bl 1r.18f.) ‘prophets were killed’ (§4.43); ga-qiman* means liter-
ally ‘come together’ (e.g. 1Cor 14:23A), hence ‘fit, be fitting’ (Col 3:18B), like Lat.
convenit ‘id.’, and ‘arrive (at)’ (Phil 3:11A/B) (cf. Velten 1930: 497; Scherer 1964: 228;
West 1981b: 256)
sniwan* ‘act quickly, successfully attain, come upon’,5 3sg snau-h (1Thess 2:16B)
‘caught up with’ (§11.14) / faur-snau salbon (Mk 14:8) ‘she hastened beforehand to
anoint’ / ga-snau (Rom 9:31A) ‘successfully attained’, ga-snewum (Phil 3:16A/B) ‘id.’,
*snuwans (or *sniwans after str 5?); 3pl pret du-at-sniwun (Mk 6:53) ‘quickly
arrived at’ for Gk. pros-ōrmísthēsan (aor pass) ‘came to anchor at (the shore)’
(Casaretto 2014: 52), may stem from the chance similarity of Gk. hormízō ‘moor,
anchor’ and hormáō ‘hasten on, urge on’ (EDG 1104f.); sniwan* is often classified as
str 5 (e.g. Snædal), but others have assumed str 4 (§2.14, end); on the ambiguity,
cf. GG 152; Schuhmann (2018a: 263)
-tairan ‘tear’ (ga-tairan 3x ‘tear down, demolish’), ga-tar (Gal 2:18A) ‘I destroyed’,
*-taurum, ga-taurans* (nom sg n ga-tauran Gal 5:11B) ‘removed, eliminated’; dis-
tairan* (Mk 2:22, Lk 5:37) means ‘tear apart’ (Rolffs 1908: 10) including figuratively
in leitil bei [s]tis allana daig dis-tairiþ (Gal 5:9B) ‘a little yeast leavens all the dough’
(cf. Velten 1930: 499)
bid(j)an ‘beg, ask (for); pray’ : bidjan (10x, 2 dupl) / bidan (1Cor 7:5A); cf. 1sg us-bida
Rom 9:3A ‘I wish’ (for something from someone, in contrast to the simplex ‘direct
5 Götti (1974: 101) claims that gaggan ‘go’ is a synonym. The usual gloss is ‘hasten’. Sometimes ‘go’ is
appropriate, e.g. faur-sniwandam (1Tim 1:18A/B) ‘foregoing’. Skeat (1868) glosses sniwan ‘go, proceed;
come (hastily)’, Köbler (1989) ‘hasten, speed; come upon’. Some contexts suggest striving for or attaining
a goal; cf. Lloyd (1979: 253): ‘strive to reach’; ga- prefixed ‘reach, attain (through striving)’.
5.9 Strong class 5 185
one’s request to someone’: Gruber 1930: 19; cf. Wolf 1915: 27), baþ/bad, bedun,
*bidans; the sense of ‘pray’ was introduced with Christian vocabulary (Velten 1930:
490; Laird 1940: 150ff.); bid(j)an translates four different Greek verbs with a num-
ber of meanings (Grünwald 1910: 29–33)
fraihnan ‘ask; try to find out’, 3sg frah, frehun (16x) (cf. ga-frehun Mk 2:1 ‘they found
out’), fraihans (Lk 17:20) ‘asked’
giban ‘give’: inf also at-giban ‘hand over, deliver’, fra-giban ‘give, grant; pardon, for-
give’ (Bucsko 2011: 118), us-giban ‘pay out; offer, present; give back’ = Gk. apo-didónai
‘id.’ (Wolf 1915: 15; Velten 1930: 695; Gruber 1930: 15); (at)gaf, at-gebum / gebun,
at-gibans (Mk 1:14; cf. nom sg n (at)giban, e.g. [namo . . . | ] atgiban mannam Bl 1v.3f.
‘(name) given to people’); af-giban* occurs only in 3sg pret af-gaf sik (Philem 15)
‘was separated’ (Bucsko 2011: 71)
bi-gitan (2Tim 1:18A/B) ‘find, discover’, bi-gat, bi-getun, bi-gitans (5x) (Bucsko 2011: 83f.)
itan (Lk 15:16, 16:21) [opt tr but in contrast to matjan ‘eat’, never occurs with dir obj:
GK 54] ‘eat’, et* (only in fret ; cf. GG 152; see next), etun (Lk 17:27, 28), *itans (Majut
1974: 420ff.)
fra-ïtan* ‘eat up, devour, consume’ (q.v. in App.) (cf. fra-ïtiþ 2Cor 11:20B), fret
(Lk 15:30), fretun (Mk 4:4, Lk 8:5), *fr(a)itans (Majut 1974: 423ff.)
ligan* ‘lie, be lying down’, lag, *lēgum, — [no PP: GG 152]; prefixed forms are sparse:
at-ligan* (3sg at-ligiþ Rom 7:18A ‘is present in’); uf-ligan* ‘falter’ attests only two
forms: 3pl uf-ligand (Mk 8:3) ‘they (will) become weary’, 2pl opt uf-ligaiþ Lk 16:9
‘(when) you fail’, considered idiomatic (Bucsko 2011: 106), possibly equivalent to
Lat. suc-cumbere ‘id.’ (cf. Velten 1930: 496); cf. the hapax fair-ligan* in unte fairl [ag]
weihs aiþþau airkns (Bl 1r.10) ‘for a holy or inherently pure (person) failed/is lack-
ing’ (Falluomini 2014: 292, 296, 304)
(ga)lisan* ‘collect, gather, assemble’, 3sg las (Sk 7.3.17) ‘gathered’, ga-lesun, *(ga)lisans;
impv ga-lis is conjectured at Bl 1r.2 (Falluomini 2017, acknowledging Schuhmann)
mitan ‘measure’ (in us-mitan 1Tim 3:15A ‘behave’), *mat, us-metum (Eph 2:3A/B,
2Cor 1:12A ~ us-meitum B) ‘we conducted ourselves’, *mitans; the literal meaning of
us-mitan is ‘measure out’ (Wolf 1915: 24; Sturtevant 1937: 180f.; Bucsko 2011: 110f.)
ga-nisan ‘be saved, healed’, ga-nas (Mt 9:22, Lk 8:36), ga-nesun (Mk 6:56), *ga-nisans;
a lexical passive that translates a Greek passive, e.g. as mag ganisan (Mk 10:27) =
Gk. tís dúnatai sōthẽnai ‘who can be saved?’ (Joseph 1981: 369), in [þammei skulum] |
ganisan weis (Bl 1v.4f.) ‘in which we must be saved’ (Falluomini 2014: 290); adapted
to the Christian concept of salvation (Weinhold 1870: 23; Kauffmann 1923: 22ff.)
qiþan ‘speak, say, tell; assert’, qaþ, qeþun, qiþans* (nom sg n qiþan); 1sg pret qeþum
only in faura-qeþum (1Thess 3:4B ‘foretold’, 4:6B ‘forewarned’: Laird 1940: 142);
faura-qaþ (2Cor 7:3A/B) ‘I said before’ (Laird 1940: 142; Bucsko 2011: 31); contrast
faur-qiþan (Lk 14:18) ‘make excuses’, 1sg faur-qiþa (Gal 2:21A) ‘nullify’, PPP acc sg
m habai mik faur-qiþanana [have me excused] (Lk 14:18, 19) ‘excuse me’ (cf. Bucsko
2011: 91); fra-qiþan* ‘curse, disparage, reject’ (ibid. 94f.); all eight prefixed qiþan
constructs differ in idiomaticity (Bucsko 2011: 159), many of which are calques
(Velten 1930: 347), but ana-qiþan* (1x) [speak against] ‘denounce’ is native (Sturtevant
186 The verbal system
‘stay’ was the basic meaning of IE *h2wes-, which became suppletive to *h1es- ‘be’
(EDPG 582; App.)
wrikan* ‘persecute’, wrak (1Cor 15:9A; 3sg Gal 1:23A/B, 4:29B), wrekun (Jn 15:20) /
fra-wrekun 1Thess 2:15B), wrikans* (nom pl m wrikanai 2Cor 4:9A/B); with a ga-
prefix this old Germanic legal word designates the re-establishment of justice for
the person(s) wronged, e.g. iþ guþ niu gawrikai þans gawalidans seinans (Lk 18:7)
‘and shall God not provide justice for (i.e. avenge) his own chosen ones?’ (Lloyd
1979: 260)
ga-daban ‘befit, befall, happen (to), occur’, 3sg ga-dob ‘befitted’, —, ga-dabans* (acc
pl n wk ga-dabanona Lk 24:14G) ‘occurred’; two of the three occurrences of this
verb follow: þoei habaidedun ina ga-daban (Mk 10:32) ‘(the things) that were pre-
destined to befall him’, swaswe ga|dob þans ufar miton | munandane (Sk 3.3.10ff.) ‘as
befitted those who were above deliberate intent’ (tr. Bennett 1960: 61); in verifiable
passages, this verb translates Gk. sum-baínein [come together] in the sense of ‘fall
to one’s lot, happen’; the different meaning in Skeireins is more consistent with the
adjective ga-dofs* ‘fitting, appropriate’ (only neuter ga-dob and 1x ga-dof Tit 2:1A),
e.g. þatei ga-dob ist qinom ga-haitandeim guþ blotan (1Tim 2:10A/B) ‘which is befit-
ting to women professing to revere God’. The two words are related via a Germanic
root *daban- ‘to fit’ (GED 134f., HGE 73, EDPG 86)
ga-draban* ‘hew’ (1x): þatei was gadraban us staina (Mk 15:46) ‘that was hewn from
stone’; the emendation to †gagraban (VEW 160) is generally not accepted (GED
136, EDPG 98); graban ‘dig’ never occurs with ga- (Patrick Stiles, p.c., comparing
ON drafna ‘disintegrate’)
dragan* ‘drag, attract’ is attested only in the nonpast: 3pl dragand (2Tim 4:3B ~ ga-
dragand A) ‘accumulate’, 1sg at-draga (Bl 2r.7) ‘drag’ (Falluomini 2014: 296)
fraþjan ‘think, perceive, realize, understand’ (lit. ‘use one’s understanding’: Lloyd 1979:
261), froþ (1Cor 13:11A) ‘I thought’ / 3sg (Sk 2.2.6) ‘understood’, froþun, —; the
many meanings of fraþjan and the different Greek verbs it translates are discussed
in Elkin (1954: 287ff.)
graban (Lk 16:3) ‘dig’, 3sg grob (Lk 6:48) ‘excavated’, —, — (Del Pezzo 1985: 130)
and-hafjan (Col 4:6A/B) ‘reply, answer’ / us-hafjan (Lk 18:13) ‘raise up’ with us- in the
sense of ‘up(wards), aloft’ (Wolf 1915: 17f.; Gruber 1930: 28), 3sg and/us-hof, and/
us-hofun, hafans* (nom sg n us-hafan Lk 9:17 ‘picked up’); andhafjan has no passive
forms (Aston 1958: 42f.)
sakan (2Tim 2:24A/B) engender strife, be quarrelsome’ / ga-sakan (3x, 1 dupl) ‘rebuke,
silence; refute’, in-sakan (Bl 2r.17) ‘declare’; sok (in us-sok Gal 2:2A/B ‘I laid out,
explained’ [Wolf 1915: 23]; 3sg ga-sok 6x, in-sok Sk 4.3.1, 5.1.14, Bl 1v.24 [restored at
1v.2] ‘declared’), sokun (Mk 10:13 ‘rebuked’, Jn 6:52 ‘argued’, Sk 8.4.6 ‘reasoned’), sakans
(in ga-sakans Lk 3:19 ‘rebuked’, dat sg f and-sakanai Lk 2:34 ‘disputed, opposed’, nom
pl n þonu in-sakana we|sun fram iohan|ne Sk 4.4.12 ‘these (matters) were declared by
188 The verbal system
John’); in-sakan also means ‘argue’, as in faur sunja | in-sakandin (Sk 8.3.21f.) ‘arguing
for the truth’; ga-sakan is formed like Lat. con-vincere [together-fight] ‘convince,
refute, convict’ (Velten 1930: 347)
ga-skapjan* ‘create, make’, 3sg ga-skop (Mk 13:19, Col 3:10B, 1Tim 4:3A/B), *ga-
skopum, ga-skapans (Mk 2:27)
(ga)skaþjan* ‘(do) wrong, (do) harm, injure’, 3sg skoþ (Col 3:25B) ‘did wrong’ (and-
nimiþ þatei skoþ ‘will pay for the wrong he has done’) / ga-skoþ (Philem 1:18) ‘did
wrong’, ga-skoþum (2Cor 7:2A/B) ‘we wronged’, *skaþans (Pausch 1954: 101f.); see
also (us)skarjan (App.)
slahan* ‘strike, beat, hit, smite’, 3sg sloh (3x) / af-sloh imma auso (Mk 14:47) ‘struck off
his ear’, slohun (3x) / af-slohun (Mk 12:5) ‘they killed’, *slahans; for the two mean-
ings of af-slahan*, ‘strike off ’ and ‘kill’, see Bucsko (2011: 115), specifically ‘kill with
a knife’ (Barasch 1973: 135)
standan ‘stand; be standing; stand (near)by’ (Pollak 1972: 49f.) / ga-standan ‘come to a
stand, stop, stay’ / us-standan ‘rise up, arise, emerge’ / and-standan (Mt 5:39 ‘resist’,
Eph 6:13A/B ‘stand (your) ground’), and-stoþ (Gal 2:11B) ‘I opposed’ / 3sg (ga/us)
stoþ, af-stoþum (2Cor 4:2A/B) ‘we renounced’ / 3pl stoþun (Jn 18:18) ‘were stand-
ing’ / ga-stoþun (Lk 7:14, 17:12) ‘stopped, stood still’, — [no participle: GG 152, but
note un–ga-stoþai (1Cor 4:11A) ‘(we are) not sedentary, have no dwelling place, are
homeless’]; cf. also in-standan* (2x) ‘be imminent, present’, a calque on Gk. ení-
stasthai ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 348, 349)
swaran (inf 3x, 1 dupl) ‘swear, take an oath’ (7x, 2 dupl), 3sg swor (Mk 6:23, Lk 1:73),
*sworum, *swarans, mostly with þatei ‘that’ clauses, but also swor izai þatei . . . (Mk 6:23)
‘he swore to her that . . . ’; prefixed forms are rare: bi-swaran* ‘adjure, implore’, only
1sg bi-swara (Mk 5:7, 1Thess 5:27A/B), ufar-swaran* ‘swear falsely’, only 2sg opt ni
ufar-swarais (Mt 5:33) ‘you shall not commit perjury’ (cf. Pausch 1954: 94f.; Bucsko
2011: 107)6
þwahan (Jn 9:7, 13:14) ‘wash, bathe’ / af-þwahan (Jn 9:11) ‘wash (off)’, þwoh (in af-þwoh
Jn 9:15 ‘I washed (off)’, us-þwoh izwis fotuns Jn 13:14 ‘I washed clean your feet’; 3sg
af-þwoh Jn 9:7, us-þwoh fotuns ize Jn 13:12 ‘finished washing their feet’), þwohun
(in us-þwohun natja Lk 5:2 ‘were washing out their nets’), þwahans* in un–þwahans*
‘unwashed’ (dat pl f unþwahanaim Mk 7:2, 5)
wahsjan (4x) ‘grow, wax, increase in development’, 3sg wohs (Lk 1:80, 2:40) ‘grew’,
*wohsum, wahsans (in us-wahsans Jn 9:21, 23 ‘grown up, full grown’)
af-aikan ‘renounce, deny (by direct assertion)’ (Mk 14:71 ‘(place a) curse’, 2Tim 2:13B
‘deny, disown’), 3sg af-aikiþ (Mt 10:33, 2Tim 2:12B, Bl 2r.24), 3sg pret af-aiaik
6 A form naiswor occurs in iþ so Herodia naiswor imma (Mk 6:19), for Gk. eneĩkhen autõi ‘had it in for
him’, Vet. Lat. īnsidiābātur illī ‘plotted against him’. For naiswor Snædal conjectures *naitida to nonexisting
*naitjan; cf. ga-naitjan* in ganaitidana (Mk 12:4) ‘dishonored’ (Gk. ētīmōménon ‘id.’). Another idea is
*na(w)i-swor ‘swore death’ (Regan 1972: 213); other conjectures in GG 150, GED 332f. (s.v. swaran).
5.11 Strong class 7 189
(Mt 26:72, Mk 14:68, Jn 18:25, 27) ‘denied’ (Marold 1883: 68; Grünwald 1910: 38;
Barasch 1973: 125f.)
aukan* ‘become greater, increase’ attests only one form: PrP nom sg f aukandei
(Sk 4.2.13) ‘increasing’; prefixed ana-aukan (Mt 6:27) ‘add’ has 3sg pret ana-aiauk
(Lk 3:20, Sk 6.4.2f. ‘added’; Lk 20:11, 12 ‘proceeded’ Piras 2009: 170f.); bi-aukan* (3x)
‘increase, multiply’ can take a direct object and has a contrasting bi-auknan ‘abound’
(Katz 2016: 99–103)
fāhan (Jn 7:44) ‘seize, arrest’, faifāh (Jn 8:20) ‘id.’, ga-faifāhun (Rom 9:30A) ‘obtained,
got’, ga-fāhans (Phil 3:12A/B) ‘apprehended, possessed’; ga-fāhan can also mean
‘catch, attack, object to’ [+gen], e.g. ni mahtedun ga-fāhan is waurde (Lk 20:26)
‘they could not catch him on his words’ (§4.29)
falþan* ‘fold’ attests only 3sg pret faifalþ (Lk 4:20) ‘rolled up’
flokan* ‘bewail’: one attested form: 3pl pret faiflokun (Lk 8:52)
fraisan* ‘attempt, test, tempt’, faifrais* (3sg pret opt us-faifraisi 1Thess 3:5B), —, frai-
sans (Mk 1:13, Lk 4:2); for the range of meanings, including Christian ‘tempt’, cf. Gk.
peirázein, Lat. tentāre ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 490)
gretan (~ greitan) (7) ‘weep, cry’, gaigrot (3sg), gaigrotun (Lk 8:52), *gretans
1.hāhan* ‘suspend’ (2sg und a saiwala unsara hāhis Jn 10:24 ‘how long will you keep
our soul in suspense?’ renders Gk. aíreis ‘suspend’: Velten 1930: 495), haihāh (in 3sg
us-haihāh sik Mt 27:5 ‘hanged himself ’ Wolf 1915: 27), —, at-hāhans was (2Cor
11:33B) ‘I was let down’
haitan (Lk 1:62) ‘name’ (40x), ‘call’ (17x), ‘command’ + inf (7x) (Grünwald 1910: 18–26;
Cloutier 2013: 22–5); (3pl haitand only Bl 2v.8 <haitan> ‘they will call’), 3sg haihait,
haihaitun, haitans; prefixed forms: and-haitan ‘declare; confess’ (inf only Sk 5.1.21f.
‘acknowledge’), ‘praise, thank’ (Lk 10:21+) = Gk. exomologeĩsthai ‘confess; give
thanks’ (Velten 1930: 491); at-haitan* ‘call to, summon’, e.g. 2sg impv at-hait
(Bl 1v.26) ‘summon’; ga-haitan* ‘call together, convoke’, e.g. ga-haihaitun alla hansa
(Mk 15:16) ‘called together the entire cohort’; ‘claim, profess’ (= Gk. ep-aggéllesthai
‘id.’), e.g. þatei gadob ist qinom ga-haitandeim guþ blotan (1Tim 2:10A/B) ‘which is
appropriate for women professing to revere God’; and ‘promise’, e.g. ga-haihaitun
imma faihu giban (Mk 14:11) ‘they promised to give him money’ (Aston 1858; 56–9;
Bucsko 2011: 120); cf. faura-ga-haitan* ‘promise beforehand’ only PPP acc sg m wk
fauragahaitanan (2Cor 9:5A/B) ‘aforepromised’, modeled on Gk. pro-kat-aggéllein
‘announce/declare beforehand’ (Casaretto 2014: 51)
opan ‘boast, brag’, ai op (2Cor 7:14A/B), —, —
laikan ‘dance, jump for joy’ (in bi-laikan Lk 14:29 ‘mock, ridicule’: Bucsko 2011: 84),
lailaik (Lk 1:41, 44) ‘danced, jumped for joy’, bi-lailaikun, *laikans
lauan* (or ?laian* GG 42, 46, 153) ‘berate, insult’ attests only one form: lailoun (Jn 9:28)
letan ‘let, allow, permit’ in af-letan ‘let go; leave’, us-letan ‘exclude, oust’ (Wolf 1915: 15),
fra-letan ‘forgive; let down; permit; set free, release; let go’ (Ambrosini 1967), e.g.
is|rael ni fraleta Bl 2v.20f. = Ex 5:2 ‘I will not let Israel go’ (Falluomini 2014: 292,
304), 3sg lailot, lailotun (Mk 11:6), letans* (only acc sg f af-leitana Lk 16:18
‘divorced (female)’); for ‘leave (behind), send off ’ (= Gk. aphiénai ‘id.’) cf. af-letands
190 The verbal system
ins (Mk 8:13) ‘(he) leaving them’, af-letandans þo managein (Mk 4:36) ‘(they) send-
ing away the multitude’ (Velten 1930: 496)
maitan ‘to cut’ (in bi-maitan ‘circumcise; get circumcised’ Sturtevant 1925: 508, 510f.),
af-maimait ‘cut off ’, maimaitun (Mk 11:8) [the only attested form of unprefixed
maitan*], bi-maitans (1Cor 7:18A) / us-maitans (Rom 11:24A) ‘cut out’ (Wolf 1915: 14;
Gruber 1930: 25); cf. un–bi-maitans* (nom pl m -maitanai Eph 2:11A/B) ‘uncircum-
cised’ ≠ Gk. akrobustíā ‘circumcision’; the Gothic translation accurately captures the
collective meaning ‘the uncircumcised’ (Marold 1883: 84; cf. Kind 1901: 19f.)
redan ‘advise, advocate’ (in und|redan Sk 6.2.19f. ‘provide’), 3sg rairoþ (in faura-ga-
rairoþ Eph 1:5A/B ‘foreordained, predestined’), *rairodum (*rairoþum with VL
eliminated?), redans* (nom pl m faura-ga-redanai Eph 1:11A/B ‘(having been) fore-
ordained, predestined’); there is only one ga- form: PrP nom pl m ga-redandans
(2Cor 8:21) ‘aiming at’ (Bucsko 2011: 100), but note the two occurrences of faura-ga-
redan* ‘foreordain’ (above)
saian (3x) ‘sow’, saiso (Lk 19:22; 3sg Mk 4:4, Lk 8:5), saisoum*, saians* (nom pl m wk
saianans Mk 4:16, 18, 20); 2sg pret saisost (Lk 19:21) for *saisot is problematic
(GG 147). Scribal error (Sihler 1986b) is too facile. The main proposals are analogy
with ga-stost ‘you stand’ (§2.4) (Sturtevant 1933b: 209; cf. Bammesberger 1990b)
and with dental-stem members of the same class: *gaigrost (gretan), *lailost (letan),
etc. (Nielsen 1989b), esp since -st could be extracted by reanalysis as {lai-lot+st}
(Heidermanns 2007b: 64f.; Nielsen 2017)
saltan* ‘salt’ (3sg pass saltada Mk 9:49 2x), *saisalt, *saisaltum, saltans* in un-saltans*
‘unsalted’: iþ jabai salt unsaltan wairþiþ (Mk 9:50) ‘but if salt becomes unsalted’, i.e.
loses its saltiness/savor (= Gk. eàn dè tò hálas ánalon génētai ‘id.’)
skaidan ‘divide; separate; divorce’ (Mt 10:35 ‘separate, turn against’, 1Cor 7:10A ‘separate
from, divorce’) / af-skaidan (Rom 8:39A) ‘separate (from)’, 3sg af-skaiskaid sik (Gal
2:12B) ‘separated himself, held himself aloof from’, af-skaiskaidun (Lk 9:33) ‘they
were (de)parting from’, *skaidans
slepan* ‘sleep, be asleep’, 3sg saislep (Mt 8:24) (cf. ana-saisleip Lk 8:23 ‘fell asleep’) /
ga-saizlep (Jn 11:11) ‘has gone to sleep’ (i.e. died), ana-saislepun (1Thess 4:14B) ‘fell
asleep’ / ga-saizlepun (1Cor 15:6A) ‘went to sleep (in death)’, *slepans (App.)
ga-staldan ‘procure, acquire, get’ (1Thess 4:4B ‘get control of, manage’), ga-staistald
(Neh 5:16) ‘I acquired’ (Gk. ektēsámēn ‘I procured for myself, acquired’), —, —
(note margin gloss 1sg opt ga-staistaldjau 1Cor 9:19A ‘that I may gain/win’)
tekan ‘touch’ (in at-tekan Lk 6:19 id.’), 3sg taitok (Mk 5:30, 31, Lk 8:46) / attaitok (11x),
at-taitokun (Mk 6:56), *tekans
waian* ‘blow’, *waiwo, waiwoun (Mt 7:25, 27), *waians
gaggan ‘go’, 3sg pret iddja (freq; 1sg iddja in prefixed forms) / gaggida (Lk 19:12) [perhaps
to a wk 1 gaggjan* : GK 42, w. lit], iddjedum, gaggans* (acc sg f us-gaggana Mk 7:30
‘gone out’) ‘gone’ (PPs of itr verbs are active: Suzuki 1989: 36ff.); translates Gk.
érkhesthai ‘come, go’ 27x (Francini 2009: 102) and ana-baínein ‘go up’, rendered by
three other Gothic verbs (Barasch 1973: 130f.); often it-dur and takes 16 different
prefixes (Götti 1974: 5–42)
Class 1 2 3 4
nasjan sokjan salbon haban fullnan*
‘save’ ‘seek’ ‘anoint’ ‘have’ ‘get filled’
Indicative
Imperative
7 For the unattested fulln, cf. uslukn (Mk 7:34) ‘open up!’, afdumbn (Mk 4:39) ‘be quiet!’ (‘be calm’),
afdobn (Lk 4:35) ‘be(come) silent, shut up!’.
8 *salbowa should not be correct. The w should have deleted, and the fate of *-oa depends on whether
or not lowering applied in unstressed syllables (Jay Jasanoff, p.c.).
5.13 The weak verb 193
The sample list that follows contains weak verbs arranged by class.9 The classes are:
1 -j- (a huge class) causative, denom (34%), deadj (21%); 2 -ō- (some 65 verbs GS 101);
iterative, intensive;10 denom (50%), deadj (10%) (West 1981a: 326): actor, instrument,
etc. (Schaefer 1984); 3 -ái- (some 40 verbs) stative, durative; 4 -na-/-no- (61 verbs)
nonagentive (West 1980), telic, fientive, target-stative (Katz 2016).11 A potential 5th
class is ignored here because, except for briggan ‘bring’ (§5.12), the verbs are wk 1
(GG 173): brūkjan ‘use’, -bugjan ‘buy’, sokjan ‘seek’, þagkjan ‘ponder’, þugkjan ‘deem’,
waurkjan ‘work’, all with a -C- stem pret, e.g. brūh-ta (2Cor 1:17A/B) ‘I used’, not
*brūg-i-da.
-bugjan (-C-) ‘buy, purchase’, bauhta, bauhtedun, -bauhts, and its converse fra-bugjan
(Mk 14:5) ‘sell’, *fra-bauhta, fra-bauhtedun (Lk 17:28), fra-bauhts (Rom 7:14A) (West
1982: 158f.; cf. Bucsko 2011: 93); the only other prefixed construct is us-bugjan* ‘buy
up, out; redeem; make the most of ’ (Wolf 1915: 27); for the legal status see Pausch
(1954: 66)
daupjan (3x) ‘baptize’ [lit. ‘dip, dunk’ with new Christian meaning; cf. Weinhold 1870:
21; Velten 1930: 490; Lane 1933: 324f.; Del Pezzo 1973b; GK 47; Casaretto 2014: 47];
1x ‘wash’ [tr 22x, itr 2x: GK 102f.; active is frequently intransitive or used passively:
Grimm 1837: 58; Gering 1874: 298; GE 191; Sturtevant 1925: 508ff.; Berard 1993a:
261], daupida (1Cor 1:14, 16A; 3sg Lk 3:21), daupidedum* (cf. 1sg opt daupidedjau
1Cor 1:15, 16A), daupiþs (Mk 1:9)
domjan ‘discern, distinguish; judge, deem’ (Lk 10:29 ‘acquit, justify’, 2Cor 10:12B
‘class(ify)’); inf also af-domjan Mt 26:74 / 26:74C ‘curse’ (invoke God’s judgment on
oneself), with 3sg af-domeiþ (Bl 2r.25), ga-domjan (2Cor 10:12B) ‘compare’ (§6.5),
*domida, domidedun (Lk 7:29) ‘acknowledged, declared’ / ga-domidedun (Mk 14:64)
‘decided, condemned’, domiþs in af-domiþs (Jn 16:11) ‘judged, condemned’, garaihts
ga-domiþs [deemed righteous] (Phil 3:12A/B) ‘accomplished, perfect(ed)’, (1Tim
3:16A) ‘vindicated’, nom sg f ga-domida (Mt 11:19) ‘justified, proved right, vindi-
cated’; for the semantics of domjan and its prefixed forms see Benveniste (1961:
21–6); domjan is not used of God’s judgment (Bertau 1987: 221)
dragkjan* ‘give (to someone) to drink’ [caus of drigkan ‘drink’] takes only human
objects in the attested corpus (GK 61f.), e.g. 2sg impv dragkei ina (Rom 12:20A/C)
‘give him (something) to drink’, 3sg draggkida Mt 27:48 ~ dragkida Mk 15:36, drag-
kidedum* (2pl dragkideduþ Mt 25:42C), dragkiþs* (nom pl m dragkidai 1Cor 12:13A
‘made to drink’)
fodjan* ‘feed, nurture, rear’ (of humans and animals: GK 53), 3sg fo|dida (Sk 7.4.9f.)
‘fed’, fodidedum* (3sg pret opt fodidedi 1Tim 5:10A/B ‘raised (children)’), fodiþs
(Lk 4:16) ‘raised, brought up’; the range of meanings imitates Gk. tréphein ‘id.’
(Velten 1930: 495)
us-fulljan ‘fill (up), fulfill’, 3sg us-fullida, us-fullidedun, us-fulliþs (2Cor 7:4A/B) ‘filled,
fulfilled, overwhelmed’ (Wolf 1915: 26; Gruber 1930: 32; esp. Hinderling 1971); note
usfulljada (Rom 13:9A) ‘is summed up’, usfullida (Rom 13:8A) ‘fulfilled’ (Alcamesi
2009: 11); see fullnan* (§5.5)
gairnjan* ‘long for, desire’, 3sg gairnida, —, —
gaurjan* ‘grieve, cause anguish, (cause) pain’, gaurida (2Cor 7:8A/B), *gauridedum,
gauriþs*, e.g. nom pl m gauridai wesuþ (2Cor 7:9A/B 2x) ‘you were pained’ [of the
5.15 Weak class 1 195
10 occurrences of this verb, 9 dupl, all are in 2Cor except 2pl opt ni gaurjaiþ
(Eph 4:30A/B) ‘do not vex’, 3sg pass gaurjada (Rom 14:15C) ‘is being hurt, upset’]
(ga)hailjan ‘heal, cure’ [lit. ‘make well/whole’, deadj to hails ‘healthy, sound’: GGS 174,
Lloyd 1979: 247, GG 161], ga-hailida, hailidedum* (3sg pret opt hailidedi Mk 3:2) /
ga-hailidedun (Mk 6:13), hailiþs* (nom pl m ga-hailidai Lk 6:18)
hauhjan (Rom 15:9C) [raise] ‘exalt, praise, glorify’ [deadj to hauhs* ‘high’ GK 70],
hauhida, hauhidedun, hauhiþs; for us-hauhjan ‘raise up; exalt’, cf. jah ik jabai us-
hauhjada af airþai (Jn 12:32) ‘and if I am lifted up from the earth’, ga-drausida mahtei-
gans af stolam jah us-hauhida gahnaiwidans (Lk 1:52) ‘he brought down the mighty
from (their) thrones and raised up the lowly’ (Wolf 1915: 26; cf. Velten 1930: 492)
haunjan ‘make lowly’: inf lais jah haunjan mik (Phil 4:12B) ‘I know how to be lowly’
(i.e. survive when poor), ga-haunida sik silban (Phil 2:8B) ‘he humbled himself ’,
*haunidum, hauniþs*: haunidaim gibiþ anst (Bl 2r.9) ‘to the humble(d) he (God)
gives grace’ (Falluomini 2014: 304)
hausjan / ga-hausjan (Mk 7:37) ‘hear, listen (to), obey’, hausida, hausidedum, hausiþs*
(nom sg n ni ga-hausiþ was Jn 9:32 ‘it was not heard’); for hearing as a capacity, cf.
saei habai ausona du hausjan (Lk 8:8) ‘he that have ears for hearing’ (Lloyd 1979:
235); for the meaning ‘listen to’, cf. a þamma hauseiþ? (Jn 10:20) ‘why are you lis-
tening to him?’ (Lloyd 1979: 233); note also and-hausjan* ‘listen to, heed, obey’ and
idiomatic uf-hausjan ‘obey, submit to’ (Bucsko 2011: 105f.), both of which calque
Gk. eis-akoúein ‘hearken, heed’, hup-akoúein ‘listen (to), attend to, submit to’
(Velten 1930: 346; Barasch 1973: 126f.); ga-hausjan emphasizes the established abil-
ity to hear and understand (Josephson 1976: 165f.)
hazjan ‘praise’, 3sg hazida, hazidedun, *haziþs
hrainjan ‘clean’ (in af-hrainjan Sk 1.1.12 ‘cleanse away’, and ga-hrainjan 3x ‘cleanse,
purify’), —, —, ga-hrainids (Lk 4:27) ‘cleansed’
hropjan ‘cry out, shout’, 3sg hropida, hropidedun, —
hugjan* ‘be inclined, disposed, minded (in a certain way), suppose, think’ (Lloyd
1979: 242ff.), hugida in 3sg af-hugida (Gal 3:1A = Gk. ebáskanen) ‘bewitched’ (lit.
‘put out of the (right) mind’: Sturtevant 1937: 177f.; Laird 1940: 170ff.), and faura-ga-
hugida (2Cor 9:7A/B) ‘decided (beforehand)’ (Bucsko 2011: 91f.), hugidedun
(Jn 11:13) ‘they thought’, — (for this verb and its prefixed forms rendering Gk.
phroneĩn ‘think, be minded’ and noeĩn ‘think, suppose, intend’, etc., see Velten 1930:
346; Elkin 1954: 293f.)
huljan (Mk 14:65) ‘cover’ (i.e. blindfold) / and-huljan (Lk 10:22) ‘reveal’, and-hulida*
(2sg and-hulides Lk 10:21 ‘you revealed’), and-hulidedun (Mk 2:4) ‘they uncovered’
(i.e. unroofed), and-huliþs (Jn 12:38) ~ and-hulids (2Thess 2:3A) ‘revealed’; cf.
un–and-huliþ (2Cor 3:14A/B) ‘unremoved’, dis-huljiþ (Lk 8:16) ‘covers’ (Rolffs 1908:
17), and Gk. kalúptein ‘cover’ beside ana-kalúptein ‘uncover’, apo-kalúptein ‘uncover,
reveal’, and and-huleins* (f -īni-) ‘revelation’ (1Cor 14:26A+ [8x, 4 dupl]) = apo-
kálupsis ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 346); cf. also halja ‘hell’ (§8.14)
(ga)kannjan ‘make known, inform of ’, ga-kannida, ga-kannidedun, kanniþs* (nom sg
n kanniþ Eph 3:10A/B ‘made known’)
196 The verbal system
kaurjan* ‘burden, overwhelm’, kaurida, kauridedun (Neh 5:15) ‘they burdened (with
taxes)’, kauriþs (in miþ-kauriþs was Phil 3:10A/B ‘was burdened with’, i.e. ‘shared the
burden of ’); cf. ana-kaurjan* ‘overburden’ (2Cor 2:5A/B 1 sg opt anakaurjau)
kausjan (Lk 14:19) ‘taste; examine (for approval)’ [perhaps intensive to kiusan ‘test,
prove’: GK 41, 72f.], *(ga)kausida, ga-kausidedum (2Cor 8:22A/B) ‘we tested,
proved’, —; the only attestation of bi-kausjan* is PrP nom sg m in leika bi-kausjands
kuni manne (Bl 1r.8) ‘testing the race of people (?)’, in which the context is too frag-
mented to establish a precise meaning (Falluomini 2014: 296)
ana-kumbjan (Mk 8:6, Lk 9:14, 15, etc. [6x]) ‘sit down’, 3sg ana-kumbida (5x), ana-
kumbidedun (Jn 6:10), — ingressive, durative (Høst 1954); with locational Ps
(Borrmann 1892: 15)
lagjan ‘lay (down), place’ [tr (= caus of ligan* ‘lie’) but pass supplied by ga-lagjan:
GK 73f.], (ga)lagida, lagidedun (Mk 6:56) / ga-lagidedun (5x), ga-lagiþs; this verb is
associated with several Hellenisms, e.g. saiwala meina faur þuk lagja (Jn 13:37)
‘I (will) lay down my life for you’ = Gk. tēn psūkhēn mou hupèr soũ thēsō ‘id.’ (Velten
1930: 346)
(ga)laisjan ‘teach, instruct’ [caus to prt prs lais ‘I know’ (§5.24): GK 76], (ga)laisida,
(ga)laisidedum* (2pl ga-laisideduþ Phil 4:9B), ga-laisiþs (Lk 1:4); cf. un–us-laisiþs
(Jn 7:15) [un-taught] ‘uninstructed, having not been taught’, translating Gk. mē
memathēkō s ‘not having learned’ (Elkin 1954: 308ff.)
laistjan ‘follow’ has the sense of walking behind someone but also of following some-
one’s example (Götti 1974: 90): 3sg laistida, laistidedum (Mk 10:28, Lk 18:28), —; cf.
afar-laistjan* ‘follow after’ (Bucsko 2011: 59), for which 5 out of 6 forms belong to
the PrP; for ga-laistjan* ‘(closely) follow, pursue’, cf. gastigodein galaistjandans
(Rom 12:13A) = Gk. tēn philoxeníān diō kontes ‘pursuing hospitality’, i.e. ‘be eager to
show hospitality’ (Velten 1930: 347); for the past participle, cf. un–bi-laistiþs*
(nom pl m -laistidai Rom 11:33C) [untracked down] ‘untraceable, undiscoverable’
and, translating the same Greek word, un–fair-laistiþs* (acc sg f wk -laistidon Eph
3:8B) ‘boundless, incalculable’ (gabein ‘wealth’) (= Gk. an-ex-ikhníastos ‘untraceable,
inscrutable’)
ga-laubjan ‘believe (in)’, ga-laubida, ga-laubidedum, ga-laubiþs (for the complements
see §§4.43, 6.9)
lausjan ‘free, release’ (1Cor 7:27A ni sokei lausjan ‘do not seek to be freed’) / ga-lausjan
(Sk 1.2.10) ‘liberate’, 3sg ga-lausida, ga-lausidedum* (3sg opt ga-lausidedi Sk 1.3.8
‘(if) he had freed’), ga-lausiþs is qenai (1Cor 7:27A) ‘are you divorced from a wife?’;
lausei (Lk 6:30) ‘take (back)’; us-lausjan* (4x12) ‘pluck out’ (Lk 17:6) (Del Pezzo
1985: 134f.), ‘redeem, rescue’ (cf. Wolf 1915: 28); PrP sa lausjands (Rom 11:26A) ‘the
Deliverer’ = Gk. ho rhuómenos ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 492)
12 Conjectured us- is unnecessary in uslausjaidau (1Cor 1:17A) ‘(that) be voided’ (Pollak 1972: 54).
5.15 Weak class 1 197
maidjan* ‘alter, modify’ [phps deadjectival: GPA 394f.] (unprefixed only PrP nom pl m
maidjandans waurd gudis 2Cor 2:17A/B ‘adulterating the word of God’) / in-maidjan
(Gal 4:20A/B ‘change’, Sk 6.2.24 ‘be changed’), 3sg in-maidida sik (Mk 9:2) ‘changed,
was transformed’, *in-maididedum, in-maidiþs |was (Sk 3.2.5) ‘was changed’
manwjan ‘prepare’, manwida (in 3sg ga-manwida 2Cor 5:5A/B ‘prepared, fashioned’,
faura-ga-manwida Rom 9:23A, Eph 2:10A/B ‘prepared in advance’, modeled on
Gk. pro-kat-artízein ‘complete beforehand’ (Casaretto 2014: 51); cf. 2sg manwides
Lk 2:31 ‘you prepared’), *manwidedum, ga-manwiþs (2Tim 3:17A/B) / ga-manwids
(Lk 6:40) ‘fully prepared, trained, equipped’; for use of the PPP cf. gamanwids
arjizuh wairþai swe laisaris [sic] is (Lk 6:40) ‘well prepared, everyone will become
as his teacher (is)’, but periphrastic uses also occur (Gippert 2016: 139)
matjan ‘eat’, 3sg matida, matidedum (Neh 5:14, 2Thess 3:8A/B), — (optionally transitive)
ga-maurgjan* (5x) ‘shorten, cut short’ (PrP nom sg m ga-maurgjands), 3sg ga-maurgida
(Mk 13:20), ga-maurgidedum* (cf. 3sg opt ga-maurgidedi Mk 13:20), ga-maurgiþs*
(nom sg n ga-maurgiþ Bl 1r.19, acc sg n Rom 9:28A)
meljan ‘write’, melida (2Cor 7:12A/B), —, meliþs* (nom sg n meliþ Rom colophonA,
2Cor colophonA); prefixed forms include uf-melida ‘I (under)signed’ (5x, all in the
deeds from Italy), ufar-meliþ (Mk 15:26) ‘written above’, ga-meljan (Lk 2:1) ‘register,
enroll’, ga-melida (freq.), —, ga-meliþs* (nom sg n ga-meliþ (freq, incl. Bl 2r.9)
gamelid (Lk 2:23, 3:4, 4:4, 8, 10, 17, 7:27) ‘written (down)’, bi þamma gamelidin (Bl
2r.21) ‘according to the written (scripture)’
merjan ‘preach’, merida, meridedum (2Cor 11:4B), merids (1Tim 3:16A); cf. waila-merjan
‘preach the good news, evangelize’, waja-merjan ‘slander, blaspheme’ (§7.9); us-
merjan* (1x) ‘spread fame’ [Gk. dia-phēmízein] + acc: usmeridedun ina (Mt 9:31)
‘they spread his fame’ (Grünwald 1910: 17; Aston 1958: 50ff.)
mikiljan* ‘make great, praise (as great), glorify’, 3sg mikilida (in ga-mikilida Lk 1:58
‘magnified’), mikilidedun, mikilids (Lk 4:15) ‘extolled, glorified, praised’; (ga)mikil-
jan* translates Gk. megalūnein ‘make powerful, exalt; extol, magnify’ (Lk 1:46, 58
[ga-mikilida], Phil 1:20B, 2Cor 9:13B), elsewhere doxázein ‘think, suppose; magnify,
extol’; the Latin versions consistently use magnificāre, which mikiljan* closely
resembles (Velten 1930: 492)
ga-motjan (3x) ‘meet’, 3sg gamotida (4x), gamotidedun (3x), —
namnjan* ‘name, call (by name)’, 3sg namnida (Lk 6:13, 14), —, namnids (1Cor 5:11A);
naming is clear in siponjans . . . þanzei jah apaustuluns namnida (Lk 6:13) ‘his
disciples whom he also named apostles’ (cf. Grünwald 1910: 19f.; Aston 1958: 61f.;
Lloyd 1979: 251)
(ga)nasjan ‘save, heal’ [caus to ga-nisan ‘be saved’: GK 77], 3sg ga-nasida (2sg only
ganasides ‘you saved’ at Bl 1v.9, 10, 11, 16), ga-nasidedum* (3sg opt ga-nasidedi
Lk 7:3 ‘that he heal’), ga-nasiþs* (nom pl m ga-nasidai Eph 2:5, 8A/B ‘saved’)
ga-nohjan* ‘satiate, satisfy, content; abound’ (prob deadjectival to ganohs ‘enough’),
3sg ga-nohida (Eph 1:8A/B) ‘abounded, lavished’, —, ga-nohiþs (Phil 4:11B) ‘con-
tent, satisfied’ (Katz 2016: 47f.)
praufetjan* ‘prophesy’, 3sg praufetida (Mk 7:6, Lk 1:67), praufetidedum (Mt 7:22), — (App.)
198 The verbal system
qistjan ‘destroy’ (Lk 9:56) [the only unprefixed form of this verb], fra-qistida (Jn 18:9)
‘I lost’, —, qistiþs (in us-qistiþs Mk 9:31 ‘killed’; cf. nom pl m fra-qistidai 2Cor 4:9A/B
‘destroyed’); us- reinforces the basic meaning, as if ‘destroy out and out’ (cf. Wolf
1915: 28), generally of something intangible (Barasch 1973: 135)
rahnjan* ‘reckon, calculate, conclude’, rahnida, rahnidedun (Sk 8.2.18) ‘reckoned, con-
cluded’, rahniþs (Mk 15:28) ‘counted, reckoned’ (Elkin 1954: 324f.)
*raihtjan ‘make right; direct’: only prefixed ga-raihtjan (Lk 1:79) ‘guide’, —, —, ga-
raihtiþs (1Cor 4:4A) ‘justified, vindicated’; also 3sg opt ga-raihtjai (1Thess 3:11B,
2Thess 3:5B) ‘may (the Lord) direct’; at-ga-raihtjan* only 2sg opt atgaraihtjais (Tit
1:5A) ‘that you may put in order, organize, finish’, with a different meaning from
ga-raihtjan, hence probably modeled on Gk. epi-di-orthóomai ‘set in order also’
(Casaretto 2014: 51)
ur-raisjan ‘raise up’ [caus of ur-reisan ‘arise, get up’: GK 79f.] (inf Lk 3:8 ‘raise up’, Phil
1:17B ‘stir up’), ur-raisida (Rom 9:17A; 3sg 11x), urraisidedun (3x), urraisiþs*
(nom sg f ur-raisida Jn 6:18 ‘stirred up’; nom pl m miþ-ur-raisidai Eph 2:6B ‘raised
up together’) (Wolf 1915: 18f.)
rodjan ‘speak, say, tell’ [tr and itr: GK 109ff.], rodida, rodidedum (2Cor 7:14A/B),
rodiþs* (nom sg n rodiþ Lk 2:17, 20, acc Mk 5:36); the negated PrP un–rodjands
‘unspeaking, mute’ (Mk 9:25, acc sg m unrodjandan Mk 9:17, acc pl m unrodjan-
dans Mk 7:37) renders Gk. á-lalos ‘speechless’ to laleĩn ‘chatter; talk; speak’ (Velten
1930: 349). By the count in Yoshioka (1986: 219), in the Gospels rodjan translates
laleĩn ‘speak’ 78 times out of 80. The rendering with hapax maþlja (Jn 14:30) ‘I (will)
speak’ is used solemnly of Jesus (Francini 2009: 106f.). In the biblical corpus, rodjan
renders légein 4x: Lk 4:21, 7:24, 1Tim 1:7A/B, Neh 6:19 (Winkler 1896: 308). For the
semantic functions, see Grünwald (1910: 3–6) and Aston (1958: 21–5)
sagqjan* ‘sink, plunge’ [caus to sigqan* ‘sink’]: 3pl saggqjand (1Tim 6:9B ~ sagqjand
A) ‘they plunge’ (GK 81f.), PPP uf-saggqiþs (1Cor 15:54B ~ -sagqiþs A) ‘swallowed
up, vanquished’, in marein uf |sagqids warþ (Bl 2v.21f.) ‘was sunk under in the sea’
(cf. Falluomini 2014: 284)
1. saljan (inf 2x) ‘make an offering, offer (service)’ [theme in acc, recipient or experi-
encer in dat: GK 124] (inf Jn 16:2 ‘do service’, Lk 1:9 ‘burn incense’), —, salidedun
(Mk 14:12) ‘sacrificed’, saliþs* (nom sg n ga-saliþ 1Cor 8:10A, 10:28A ‘offered in sac-
rifice, sacrificed’)
2. saljan (10x, 3dupl) ‘stay, reside’ (cf. us-saljan Lk 19:7 ‘lodge’), 3sg salida (2x), —, —
sandjan (4x) ‘send’ [tr, always with human object: GK 81], sandida (in faura-ga-sandida
2Cor 9:3A/B ‘I sent (on ahead)’, in-sandida 2Cor 12:17A/B ‘I sent (on to)’, miþ-in-
sandida 2Cor 12:18A/B ‘I sent with’ (cf. Casaretto 2014: 50); 3sg sandida freq), san-
didedum (in in-sandidedum 2Cor 8:22A/B, 1Thess 3:2B, ga-h/þ-þan-miþ-sandidedum
2Cor 8:18A/B ‘and now we have sent along with’; cf. 3pl sandidedun Neh 6:17), in-
sandiþs (5x)
satjan ‘set, put, establish, plant’ [caus to sitan ‘sit’: GK 46, 82f.] (inf in af-satjan
Mk 10:2 ‘divorce’, ga-satjan Sk 1.4.8 ‘establish’), satida (in ga-satida Neh 7:1 ‘I set up’,
Jn 15:16 ‘I appointed’; 3sg satida 1Thess 5:9B ‘appointed’ / ga-satida freq), satidedun
5.15 Weak class 1 199
(Lk 17:28) ‘planted’ / ga-satidedun (Lk 5:19 ‘set down’ [as if translating Gk.
katéthēkan ‘set down’ instead of kathẽkan ‘let down, lowered’: Friedrichsen 1926:
142; cf. Klein 1992b: 32], 1Cor 16:15B ‘dedicated, devoted’) / us-satidedun (Lk 19:35)
‘put, set (on)’, satiþs in ga-satiþs 4x, 2 dupl ~ ga-satids Lk 7:8 ‘placed, set’; cf. nom
sg n satiþ 1Tim 1:9A/B ‘laid down, established’: garaihtamma nist witoþ satiþ
(1Tim 1:9A) ‘the law is not made for a righteous person’ (§4.32); ga-satiþs warþ jah
gasa (Mk 8:25) ‘he got restored/healed and saw’ (cf. Bucsko 2011: 122), perhaps
motivated by Gk. apo-kata-stẽsai ‘re-establish, restore’, Lat. re-stituere ‘restore,
revive’ (Velten 1930: 497)
Miþ-satjan* (1x): fairgunja miþ-satjau (1Cor 13:2A) should mean ‘(that) I put
mountains beside’ but may be a mistranslation for Gk. órē methistánein ‘to (re)move
mountains’, with miþ- seemingly motivated by Gk. meth- (Rice 1933)
Us-satjan* ‘set on, plant, send out’ (Wolf 1915: 18); translation prompted ‘raise’ in
us-satjai barna (Mk 12:19) ‘shall raise children’ = Gk. ex-an-istánai ‘raise up’ (Velten
1930: 497)
sokjan ‘seek, search (for), query, question, ask’ (inf Lk 19:10 ‘seek’), sokida (Neh 5:18
‘I asked for, demanded’; 3sg 5x, 1 dupl), sokidedum (Lk 2:48) ‘we have been search-
ing for’ / 3pl sokidedun (freq), —; miþ-sokjan means ‘argue with’ and takes the
dative case in Gothic: dugunnun miþ-sokjan imma (Mk 8:11) ‘they began to argue
with him’ (§6.4); for the various meanings of sokjan and its prefixed forms, see
Elkin (1954: 326–9); us-sokjan* means ‘judge’ in us-sokjaidau (1Cor 4:3A) ‘(that)
I be judged’, akei nih mik silban us-sokja (1Cor 4:3A) ‘I do not even judge myself ’,
etc., not the same as domjan or stojan (Bertau 1987: 222)
stojan (5x, 2 dupl) ‘judge’, stauida (in ga-stauida 1Cor 5:3A ‘I pronounced judgment’,
2Cor 2:1A/B ‘I decided’; cf. 2sg raihtaba stauides Lk 7:43 ‘you judged/decided
rightly/correctly’), stauidedum* (1pl opt jabai silbans uns stauidedeima 1Cor 11:31A
‘if we judged ourselves’), —; identifies with God’s staua ‘judgment’, as opposed to
domjan (Bertau 1987:222)
ga-suljan* ‘lay the foundation, found’, *ga-sulida, *ga-sulidedum, ga-suliþs* (nom sg n
ga-suliþ Mt 7:25 ~ ga-sulid Lk 6:48 ‘(it was) founded, had its foundation’; nom pl m
ga-sulidai Eph 3:18A/B ‘grounded, established’)
taiknjan ‘indicate, show, represent’ (inf in us-taiknjan Rom 9:22A ‘show (off), dem-
onstrate, display’: Wolf 1915: 17) (denom to taikns ‘sign’: Gruber 1930: 23; Laird
1940: 153–7), 3sg ga-taiknida (Lk 3:7) ‘indicated, warned’/us-taiknida (5x), taiknid-
edum* (cf. 2pl us-taiknideduþ 2Cor 7:11A/B ‘you demonstrated, proved’), taikniþs
(in ustaik|niþs Sk 8.4.11f. ‘presented, exhibited’); ustaiknjandin hroþeigans uns (2Cor
2:14A/B) ‘showing us renowned’ (Egan 1977)
taujan ‘make, do, perform, bring about, effect’, tawida (Neh 5:15 ‘I did, behaved’, 2Cor
11:7B ‘I committed’; 3sg 5x), tawidedun (Lk 6:23, 26) ‘they treated’, tawiþs*; also freq
in all forms is ga-taujan (with a similar range of meanings), including 1sg pret ga-
tawida (6x) and 1pl ga-tawidedum (Mt 7:22, Lk 17:10 ‘we did/have done, per-
formed’), plus the past participle nom pl f ga-tawidos waurþun (2Cor 12:12A/B)
‘were performed’; this verb has many idiomatic uses as calques, e.g. taujan akran = Gk.
200 The verbal system
poieĩn karpón ‘bear fruit’, (bidja . . . )taujan bidos (1Tim 2:1A/B) ‘(I urge . . . ) to say
prayers’ = Gk. poieĩsthai deēseis ‘(that) prayers be said’, etc. (Velten 1930: 348)
timrjan* (inf only spelled timbrjan Lk 14:28, 30) ‘build’; also ‘edify, contribute to spir-
itual life’ (1Cor 10:23A), ‘build up, strenghten’ (1Thess 5:11B), ‘encourage, embolden’
(1Cor 8:10A); ga-timrjan* ‘build (up), construct’, 3sg ga-timrida (4x), timridedun
(Lk 17:28), timriþs*: nom sg f ga-timrida (2x), nom pl m ana-timridai (Eph 2:20A/B)
‘built upon’, jūs miþ-ga-timridai sijuþ (Eph 2:22B) ‘you are being built together’,
with two prefixes corresponding to one in Gk. sun-oikodoméein ‘build together/
with’ (Dorfeld 1885: 21; Casaretto 2014: 52)
þagkjan (Lk 5:21, 2Cor 3:5A/B) (-C-) ‘think (over), deliberate, consider’, 3sg þāhta
(Lk 1:29 ‘pondered, wondered’, 9:7 ‘was confused, perplexed’), þāhtedun (4x),
*þāhts; and-þagkjan* (3x) ‘think of, remember, conclude’, e.g. andþāhta mik
(Lk 16:4) ‘I am resolved, I decided’ (Sturtevant 1937: 179f.); bi-þagkjan* (Lk 5:22)
‘think about, ponder’ (Elkin 1954: 331f.)
þugkjan* (-C-) ‘have the impression; appear, seem; suppose, deem; think’; impers
‘seem, think’ (Elkin 1954: 333ff.; Harbert 1978: 136–52), 3sg þūhta (4x, 1 dupl),
þūhtedun (Gal 2:9B ‘they seemed, were reputed’, Sk 6.1.11 ‘seemed’), —; for the syn-
tax, cf. jabai as anþar þugkeiþ trauan in leika (Phil 3:4A) ‘if anyone else appears to
put trust in the flesh’ (subject raising may not be independent of the Greek, and this
verb has other special properties: Harbert 2007: 259ff.); impers þugkeiþ corresponds
to Gk. dokeĩ and phaínetai ‘seems, appears’, with dat ‘think’, e.g. a izwis þugkeiþ
‘what do you think?’ Mt 26:66C = Gk. tí hūmĩn dokeĩ ‘id.’, Mk 14:64 = Gk. tí hūmĩn
phaínetai ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 500); the Latin versions have quid vōbīs vidētur ‘id.’ in
both passages (cf. VL 1970: 144, 1972: 199)
wagjan ‘shake, move’ [caus to a Gmc. *wega- ‘move’, not to ga-wigan* ‘shake’: GK 92ff.]
(inf du ni sprauto wagjan izwis 2Thess 2:2A ‘you [are] not to be quickly shaken/
upset’) / ga-wagjan (Lk 6:48) ‘shake, cause to totter’, 3sg ga-wagida (2Cor 9:2B)
‘moved, stirred up’ / in-wagida sik silban (Jn 11:33) ‘was moved, troubled’ / us-wagida
(2Cor 9:2A) ‘aroused, excited’, in-wagidedun (Mk 15:11) ‘incited’, wagiþs* (nom sg n
wagid Lk 7:24 ‘shaken, swayed’, wagidata Mt 11:7 ‘id.’); cf. un–ga-wagiþs* (nom pl m
-wagidai 1Cor 15:58A/B) ‘immovable’ (= Gk. a-meta-kī nētos ́ ‘immovable’)
us-wakjan* ‘awaken’ [derived from IE pf *wog-: GK 95f., w. lit] occurs only once:
gasaizlep; akei gaggam, ei uswakjau ina (Jn 11:11)13 ‘(Lazarus) has gone to sleep; but
let us go that I may wake him up’ (Wolf 1915: 28)
(ga)waljan* ‘choose, select’, ga-walida (4x) (3sg 3x), ga-walidedum* (2pl ga-walideduþ
Jn 15: 16), ga-waliþs* (e.g. nom pl m ga-walidai Col 3:12B) ‘chosen’ (cf. walisa* ‘genuine,
beloved’)
(us)waltjan* ‘turn over, overturn, overthrow’ [simplex itr, prefixed forms tr: GK 97],
3sg us-waltida (Mk 11:15) ‘overturned, knocked over’, wegos waltidedun in skip
13 This passage deviates from the Greek (poreúomai ‘I am going’) and Latin versions, but the deviation
is motivated by surrounding passages (Jn 11:7, 15), where gaggam correctly renders Gk. ágōmen ‘let us go’
(Dawson 2002: 13f.).
5.15 Weak class 1 201
(Mk 4:37) ‘the waves were breaking over into the boat’ / us-waltidedun (2Tim 2:18B)
‘undermined, subverted, destroyed’, — (Wolf 1915: 28)
wandjan(*) ‘turn’ [orig. trans caus but tr and itr: GK 48, 149–56] unprefixed only
2sg impv wandei (Mt 5:39) and PrP nom sg m wandjands sik (Lk 7:9); inf in
af-wandjan Rom 11:26A ‘turn away, remove’, ga-wandjan Lk 1:17 ‘turn (back)’, in-
wandjan Gal 1:7B ‘alter, distort’ (cf. inwinds* ‘perverse, unjust’: Velten 1930: 494,
496; Bucsko 2011: 129); 3sg wandida (in af-wandida sik Sk 2.1.10 ‘turned away’, at-
wandida sik Lk 19:15 ‘returned’, ga-wandida 9x), wandidedun (in af-wandidedun
2Tim 1:15A/B ‘turned away, deserted’, ga-wandidedun 5x, us-wandidedun 1Tim
1:6A/B, Sk 1.1.3 ‘turned aside’ [Wolf 1915: 16f.]; see us-hniwun §5.5), ga-wandiþs
(Lk 10:21, 23) ‘(having) turned, turning’; bi-wandjan* [turn around] ‘shun, reject’,
2sg impv bi-wandei (4x, 2 dupl) ‘shun, reject’, is considered idiomatic (Bucsko 2011:
86) but corresponds to Lat. dē-vītāre [turn/bend away] ‘id.’, and the semantic devel-
opment may be parallel (Velten 1930: 500); ga-wandjan often means ‘convert’
(Freudenthal 1959: 113ff.)
wasjan* ‘clothe, dress’ [tr and itr: Mirowicz 1935: 42ff.; GK 32, 48, 132f.], wasida (in
3sg ga-wasida Mt 6:29), wasidedum (Mt 25:38C; cf. 3pl and-wasidedun Mk 15:20
‘took off, removed’, ga-wasidedun 3x), wasiþs (in ga-wasiþs Mk 1:6, Lk 8:27 ~ ga-
wasids Lk 16:19) ‘dressed (in), wearing’
waurkjan (-C-) ‘do, work’ (and ga-waurkjan Rom 7:18A ‘effect, carry out’), waurhta
(in fra-waurhta Mt 27:4, Lk 15:18, 21 ‘I sinned’,14 ga-waurhta Deed 2.1 ‘I prepared’);
cf. 3sg waurhta Mk 6:21 ‘gave (a dinner)’, 14:6 ‘did, performed’, Gal 2:8A (2x as mar-
gin gloss of gatawida) ‘worked’, fra-waurhta 3x ‘sinned’, ga-waurhta freq), waurht-
edun (Rom 7:5A) ‘were at work, were operating’ / ga-waurhtedun (Mt 8:32, with
object run ‘effected a run’) ‘rushed (down)’, Jn 12:2 ‘prepared, gave, hosted (a din-
ner)’, *waurhts (see frawaurhts in §10.10)
weitwodjan* ‘bear witness’, 3sg weitwodida (Jn 12:17, 13:21), weitwodidedum (1Cor
15:15A, 1Thess 4:6B), —, denom to weitwoþs* ‘witness’ (q.v. in App.)
wenjan* ‘hope (for) [+acc], place hope (in) [du]’, 3sg wenida (1Tim 5:5A/B) ‘placed
hope (in)’, wenidedum (2Cor 1:10A/B, 1Tim 4:10B ‘placed hope (in)’, 2Cor 8:5A/B
‘hoped’), —
-werjan in un-werjan (Mk 10:41) ‘be displeased, indignant’, 3sg un-werida (Mk 10:14)
‘was angry, became indignant’, —, — (Rousseau 2012: 132; cf. un-werei* ‘indigna-
tion’ §8.5); otherwise this root occurs only in tuz-werjan*: 3sg opt tuz-werjai ‘shall
(not) doubt’ (Buckalew 1964: 92)
wopjan ‘call (out), summon’ (inf Lk 19:15 ‘be called, summoned’) / at-wopjan
(Mk 10:49 ‘id.’), 3sg wopida (7x) / at-wopida (Mk 9:35, Lk 6:13) ‘summoned’ / uf-
wopida ‘exclaimed’ (3x + ub-uh-wopida Lk 18:38 ‘and he called out’), wopidedun
(Mk 10:49) ‘called (out to)’ / at-wopidedun (Jn 9:18, 24) ‘summoned’, —
14 Fra-waurkjan* is supposedly denom to frawaurhts ‘sin’ (Bucsko 2011: 128), but it behaves like a
prefixed construct of waurkjan for several reasons, e.g. (i) the verb is not *fra-waurhtjan, and (ii) the
meaning is compositionally ‘do/act wrongly’ (§6.34); cf. Pausch (1954: 100, w. lit; GED 396).
202 The verbal system
wrohjan ‘accuse’ (Lk 6:7), wrohida (Jn 5:45) ‘I (will) accuse’, wrohidedun (Mk 15:3),
wrohiþs (Mt 27:12) ‘accused’ / fra-wrohiþs (Lk 16:1) ‘suspected, accused’
awiliudon (wk 2, denom to awiliuþ ‘(prayer of) thanks(giving)’ §7.4) ‘thank, give
thanks’ (e.g. 1sg awiliudo 9x, 1 dupl, incl. Bl 1r.23f.), 3sg pret awiliudoda: matide-
dun hlaif, ana þammei awiliudoda frauja (Jn 6:23) ‘they ate the bread, on which the
Lord had given thanks’, rendering a Greek genitive absolute eukharistēsantos toũ
kūríou ‘after the Lord had given thanks’ (Lücke 1876: 14); originally prob a heathen
term (Kauffmann 1923: 23)
drauhtinon* (4x) ‘do military service’ (denom to *drauhtins ‘military commander’):
3sg drauhtinoþ ‘serves as a soldier’ (1Cor 9:7A, 2Tim 2:4B), 1pl drauhtinom ‘we
wage war’ (2Cor 10:3B), PrP nom sg m drauhtinonds ‘being in active military ser-
vice’ (2Tim 2:4B)
faginon ‘rejoice’, faginoda (Phil 4:10B; 3sg Jn 8:56), faginodedum (2Cor 7:13A/B), *fagi-
noþs; the imperative is used in greetings: fagino (Lk 1:28) ‘greetings, hail!’, an imitation
of Gk. khaĩre ‘hail!’, impv of khaírein ‘rejoice’ (Schaubach 1879: 13; Velten 1930: 495)
fairinon* ‘criticize, blame’ (PrP nom pl m fairinondans 2Tim 3:3A/B), *fairinoda,
fairinodedum* (3sg pret opt fairinodedi 2Cor 8:20A/B), fairinoþs only in un–ga-
fairinoþs (Tit 1:7B+ [5x, 2 dupl]) ‘blameless’ (= Gk. an–ég-klētos ‘unaccused, with-
out reproach’, to eg-kaleĩn ‘bring a charge against’)
fiskon (Lk 5:4) ‘to fish’, denom to fisks* (GGS 174)
fraujinon (1Tim 2:12A/B) ‘(be) lord over, rule over’ (7x, 3 dupl) (§8.4)
frijon ‘love’, frijoda, frijodedun, frijoþs* (acc sg m wk frijodan Sk 5.1.8f. ‘loved’)
hatizon* ‘be angry’: only 2pl hatizoþ (Jn 7:23), denom to hatis ‘hate, anger’ (GGS 174)
hausjon ‘hear’ occurs only in the infinitive (Mk 4:33 ‘understand’, Lk 5:15 ‘hear’, Jn 6:60
‘heed, accept’ + gen) and the PrP dat pl m hausjondam (2Tim 2:14B) ‘(those who
are) listening’; apparently a doublet to wk 1 hausjan (GS 99, GG 161) with no dis-
cernible difference (Lloyd 1979: 232; West 1981a: 328)
horinon (Mt 5:32) ‘commit adultery’, 3sg gahorinoda (Mt 5:28), —, — (denom to hors,
App.)
bi-laigon* ‘lick’ attests only one form: bi-laigodedun (Lk 16:21)
laþon ‘call, summon’/ga|laþon (Sk 1.4.17f.) ‘summon, invite’, 3sg laþoda/ga-laþoda
(1Cor 7:17A) ‘called, summoned’, ga-laþodedum (Mt 25:38C) ‘we invited’, laþoþs
(1Cor 7:21A, 1Tim 6:12A/B) ‘called, summoned’ / ga-laþoþs (1Cor 7:18A 2x, 21A) ‘id.’
(Grünwald 1910: 20ff.)
ga-leikon ‘liken, compare; resemble, imitate’ (deadj to ga-leiks ‘like, similar’ GGS 174),
*ga-leikoda (cf. 3sg pass ga-leikoda Mt 7:26 ‘is/will be likened, compared’), —, —;
miþ-ga-leikon* ‘imitate together’ occurs only in PrP nom pl m miþ-ga-leikondans
meinai wairþaiþ (Phil 3:17A/B) ‘be(come) my fellow followers’, i.e. ‘join in following
my example’, which corresponds to Gk. sum-mīmētaí mou gínesthe ‘become my
joint-imitators’ (cf. Casaretto 2014: 52) (see ga-leikan §5.17)
5.16–17 Weak class 2–3 203
lekinon* ‘treat (as a physician), treat successfully, heal, cure’ (Lloyd 1979: 247) (leikinon
fram imma Lk 5:15 ‘to be treated/healed by him’ / ni mahta was fram ainomehun
ga-leikinon Lk 8:43 ‘she could not be healed by anyone’ §4.8.2), *lekinoda, lekinod-
edum* (3sg opt leikinodedi Lk 6:7 ‘(whether) he would treat/heal’), —
luston (hapax: Mt 5:28) ‘lust (after)’, denom to lustus* (§8.10) ‘lust, desire’ (GGS 174)
luton* ‘delude, deceive’: PrP nom pl m lutondans Tit 1:10A/B ‘deceivers’; otherwise us-
luton* ‘deceive, beguile’, 3sg us-lutoda (2x), —, lutoþs in Adam ni warþ us-lutoþs
(1Tim 2:14A/B) ‘Adam did not get beguiled’ (= Lat. sē-ductus ‘led astray, deceived’:
Velten 1930: 496)
miton* ‘ponder, think about, discuss, reason’, mitoda (1Cor 13:11A) ‘I reasoned’, mitod-
edun (Mk 2:8) ‘they were pondering, thinking’, — (Elkin 1954: 312)
salbon (Mk 14:8) ‘anoint’, salboda (Jn 11:2) / ga-salboda (4x), ga-salbodedun
(Mk 6:13), — (§8.27)
skalkinon ‘be a servant to; serve’ (25x, 2 dupl) (§4.43)
spillon* ‘tell, declare, report’, *spilloda, spillodedun (Neh 6:19, Mk 5:16), —; prefixes
alter meaning rather than lexical aspect, e.g. 2sg impv (Lk 9:60) ga-spillo ‘proclaim,
preach’, us-spillo (Lk 8:39) ‘tell (to the end), declare, recount’, 3pl pret us-spillodedun
(Lk 9:10) ‘they reported, related’ (Wolf 1915: 23; Scherer 1954: 220; Wood 2002: 10);
the past participle occurs negated in un–us-spilloþs* [un-told-out] ‘untellable,
inscrutable, inexplicable’ (nom pl n -spilloda Rom 11:33C, gen sg f wk -spillodons
<-spil]|lidons> 2Cor 9:15B) (Velten 1930: 349; Aston 1958: 53ff.)
þiudanon ‘be king, rule’, *þiudanoda, þiudanodedum* (2pl þiudanodeduþ (1Cor
4:8A), — (§8.4)
bauan ‘dwell’ (irreg: orig. str 7 Sturtevant 1933b: 211; GG 154; cf. 3sg bauiþ 5x, 1 dupl,
1pl bauam Bl 1r.2), 3sg bauaida (2Tim 1:5A), *bauaidedum, —; cf. ga-bauan (Mk 4:32)
‘dwell’ (of birds under the shade of a tree), also irreg as shown by ni gabauiþ in
midjamma garda | meinamma taujands hauhairtein (Bl 2r.14f.) ‘will not dwell
within my house practicing deceit’ (Falluomini 2014: 293, 304); mostly construed
with locational in ‘in’ (Borrmann 1892: 9)
fastan ‘hold fast, keep’, fastaida, fastaidedum* (3pl opt fastaidedeina Jn 15:20 ‘keep,
obey’), fastaiþs (Lk 8:29) ‘bound’; a related meaning is ‘guard’ (Gk. phuláxai), cf.
mahteigs ist þata anafilh mein fastan (2Tim 1:12A/B) ‘he is capable of guarding that
deposit of mine’
Fastan also means ‘to fast’: du e weis jah Fareisaieis fastam filu, iþ þai siponjos
þeinai ni fastand (Mt 9:14) ‘why do we and the Pharisees fast a lot, but your disciples
do not fast?’; lit. ‘hold fast [from eating]’ (Dishington 1976: 857) or ‘keep [the rite]’
(cf. Velten 1930: 502f.)
fijan (Jn 7:7) ‘hate’, fijaida (Rom 9:13A), fijaidedun (3x), *fijaiþs
haban ‘have, hold’ (not exclusively of alienable possessions, often negated, does not
require an object: Häusler 2004), habaida (handu Mt 9:25 ‘took her hand’), habaidedum
204 The verbal system
(2Cor 1:9A/B) ‘we received, had’, 3pl at-habaidedun sik (Mk 10:35) ‘came to’ (Bucsko
2011: 81f.), habaiþs (in dis-habaiþs Phil 1:23B ‘caught, hard-pressed, torn’; cf. nom sg
n habaiþ Mk 3:9 ‘held, at (one’s) disposal’); possible calque: fimf tiguns jere nauh ni
habais (Jn 8:57) [you do not yet have fifty (of) years] = Gk. pentēkonta étē oúpō
ékheis [‘id.’] ‘you are not yet fifty years old’; þai ubilaba habandans (Mk 2:17) = Gk.
hoi kakõs ékhontes ‘those feeling ill’, etc. (Kind 1901: 30; Velten 1930: 345); cf. ON
hafa illa ‘do badly’ (Sturtevant 1932: 53); dis- is ingressive, e.g. sildaleik auk dis-
habaida ina (Lk 5:9) ‘for astonishment gripped him’ (West 1982: 156)
Haban can mark futurity/necessity (Cebulla 1910: 16; Mittner 1939: 79; Ambrosini
1965; Meerwein 1977: 21f.; Kotin 1997: 487; Rousseau 2016: 185). The preterite bor-
ders on predestination: þoei habaidedun ina gadaban (Mk 10:32) ‘which were (des-
tined) to befall him’. The nonpast can express prospective ‘be going to’ (Wells 2009:
238ff.), planned (Kleyner 2015), or durative future, e.g. taujiþ jah taujan habaiþ
(2Thess 3:4B) ‘you do and will continue to do’, þatei tauja jah taujan haba (2Cor
11:12B) ‘what I am doing and intend to keep doing’ (Streitberg 1920: 201; Morris
1990: 86; Rousseau 2012: 89)
2. ga-kunnan ‘recognize’ (Sk 5.4.3) / uf-kunnan (1Thess 3:5B) ‘find out’ (cf. 2pl ana-
kunnaiþ 2Cor 1:13A/B ‘you read’), uf-kunþa, uf-kunþedum, uf-kunnaiþs* (nom pl m
uf-kunnaidai 2Cor 6:8A/B ‘known’), ana-kunnaiþs* (nom sg f ana-kunnaida 2Cor
3:2A/B ‘read’); ana-kunnan* in the sense of ‘read (silently?)’ (Patrick Stiles, p.c.)
mirrors Gk. ana-gignō skein ‘recognize; read’ (Velten 1930: 489, 496), otherwise
translated by (us)siggwan ‘read aloud’; restriction of ana-kunnan* ‘read’ to
2Corinthians may suggest another translator (Kind 1901: 26)
ga-leikan ‘delight in; be pleasing to, please, be pleased’ (20x, 4 dupl), waila ga-leikaida
(Mk 1:11, Lk 3:22) ‘I am well pleased’ (= cod. Brix. bene complacuī Odefey 1908: 99) /
3sg ga-leikaida (Lk 1:3, 1Cor 1:21A, Col 1:10A/B) ‘it pleased, was pleasing (to)’,
(1Thess 3:1B) ‘it seemed best (to us), we decided’, —, ga-leikaiþs* (nom sg n ga-leikaiþ
4x) ‘well-pleasing, acceptable’ (Gering 1874: 301); with nom and dat the meaning is
‘please, be pleasing to’; the impersonal construction with dat experiencer (alone or
with a PP) can mean ‘like, delight (in)’, e.g. mis galeikaiþ in siukeim (2Cor 12:10A/B)
‘I take pleasure in infirmities’ (Eythórsson & Barðdal 2005: 832ff.)
liban ‘to live’, 3sg libaida (cod. Vind. 795 3:8), libaidedum* (2pl libaideduþ Col
3:7A/B), —
1. liugan ‘marry’ (and 3pl impv liugandau §5.1, ftn. 2), liugaida (Lk 14:20), liugaidedun
(Lk 17:27), liugaiþs* (nom pl f liugaidos wesun Lk 17:27 ‘were married’); note pass
for Greek act gēmēi ‘marries’ for a woman: jabai liugada mawi (1Cor 7:28A) ‘if the
young girl gets married’ (Kapteijn 1911: 261); prefixed forms are 3sg pret unte þo
ga-liugaida (Mk 6:17) ‘because he had married her’ and negated PPP nom sg f un-
liugaida <-liugaidai> (1Cor 7:11A) ‘unmarried’ (= Gk. á-gamos ‘id.)
2. munan* ‘intend, be (about) to’, 3sg munaida (Lk 10:1, 19:4) ‘was about to’, munaid-
edun (Jn 6:15 ‘intended, planned, were going to’, 12:10 ‘planned, decided’), — (Elkin
1954: 315f.); occurs 4x as equivalent to Gk. méllein ‘intend’ (Ambrosini 1965: 95f.;
Meerwein 1977: 23f.; Takahaši 1982–3: 132; Wells 2009: 240f.)
5.18 Weak class 4 205
saurgan ‘be sad, sorrow’ (2Cor 7:11A/B), *saurgaida, saurgaidedum* (2pl saurgaid-
eduþ 2Cor 7:9A/B), — (denom to saurga (f -ō-) ‘sadness, sorrow, grief ’ LHE2 289)
skaman* ‘be ashamed; despair’, 3sg skamaida (2Tim 1:16A/B), —, —, always with sim-
ple refl, e.g. ni nunu skamai þuk weitwodiþos fraujins (2Tim 1:8A/B) ‘do not there-
fore be ashamed of the testimony of the Lord’, swaswe skamaidedeima uns jah liban
(2Cor 1:8B) ‘that we despaired even to live’ (Lat. ut taedēret nōs etiam vīvere ‘that it
disgusted us even to live’); MS A afswaggidai weseima (= Gk. exaporēthẽnai ‘be
vexed’: Kauffmann 1903: 453) ‘that we were turned away . . . ’ (Regan 1972: 236f.)
with skamaidedeima as a margin gloss; ga-skaman* (3sg opt ei gaskamai sik 2Thess
3:14A/B ‘that he may be ashamed’)
trauan (Phil 3:4A/B) ‘trust (in), put confidence in’, 3sg trauaida (Mt 27:43), trauaide-
dun (Lk 18:9), trauaiþs* (nom sg n ga-trauaiþ (1Tim 1:11B) ‘entrusted’; ga-trauan*
‘be persuaded, convinced, confident’ is more frequent and construed with clauses
as well as the P in; trauan (4x, 2 dupl) occurs with a reflexive dative 1x, in 1x, and du
2x (cf. Borrmann 1892: 30)
þahan* ‘keep/remain silent’, 3sg þahaida (Mk 14:61), þahaidedun (Mk 3:4, Lk 9:36) /
ga-þahaidedun (Lk 20:26) ‘they shut up, became silent’, —
þulan ‘endure’ (of passive endurance vs. winnan, which designates the activity of suf-
fering: Lloyd 1979: 260): inf þulan (Phil 4:12B) ‘need, lack’ / ga-þulan (Lk 17:25)
‘suffer’ / us-þulan (Sk 2.2.5) ‘to be undergone’, þulaida (in us-þulaida 2Tim 3:11A/B
‘I endured’), þulaidedum* (2pl us-þulaideduþ 2Cor 11:4B ‘you put up with’), —;
another meaning of us-þulan is ‘help, support’: us-þulaiþ þans siukans (1Thess
5:14B) ‘care for the weak’ (Wolf 1915: 23; Barasch 1973: 127; cf. Lat. sus-cipite īnfirmōs
‘id.’: Velten 1930: 506)
wakan* ‘be awake, watchful, vigilant’ [stative; see wakan in App.]: attested only in 1pl
opt wakaima (1Thess 5:6, 10B) ‘let us remain wide awake’, 2pl opt wakaiþ (1Cor
16:13B),15 and PrP nom pl m wakandans (Eph 6:18A/B, Col 4:2B) ‘keeping watchful,
alert’ (a frequent semantic range: Velten 1930: 506)
2.witan (Mt 27:64) ‘watch, guard’, 3sg witaida (Mk 6:20, 2Cor 11:32B), witaidedun
(Mk 3:2, Lk 6:7), — (Elkin 1954: 342ff.); ga-witan* occurs only in 2sg opt ga-witais
(Bl 1r.6) = Gk. diatērēseis ‘you will watch closely, keep faithfully’ (Falluomini 2014:
292, 297, 304)
fullnan* ‘become full, filled (up), fulfilled’, 3sg ga-fullnoda (Lk 1:41, 67, Mk 4:37 ‘was
(becoming) filled’ / us-fullnoda (Lk 1:57, Mk 1:15) ‘(time) is/was completed’ (Piras
2009: 172), (Sk 4.1.2, Mt 27:9, Mk 15:28) ‘is/was fulfilled’, ga-fullnodedun (Lk 8:23)
15 García García (2005: 65) wrongly labels wakaiþ 3sg pres (but correctly identifies it as wk 3; see in
App.), but the context is 2pl: wakaiþ standaid-uh in galaubeinai ‘be vigilant, stand firm in the faith’, cor-
responding to Gk. grēgoreĩte, stēkete en tẽi pístei, Lat. vigilāte, stāte in fidē ‘id.’ .
206 The verbal system
‘began to be filled (with water), swamped’ / us-fullnodedun (6x, all in Luke) ‘became
completed, fulfilled’, — (see us-fulljan §5.5); cf. fullai waurþun (Lk 4:28, 5:26, 6:11)
‘they became filled’ (Stolzenburg 1905: 32)
-luknan* (prob -lūknan; cf. ga-lūkan, p. 180): ga- ‘close’ / us- ‘open’ with us- in the sense
of ‘opposite’ (Gruber 1930: 25), 3sg ga-luknoda himins (Lk 4:25) ‘heaven became
closed up [and stayed that way] (for three and a half years)’ (target state: Katz 2016:
119–25) / us-luknoda (4x, 2 dupl; e.g. Lk 1:64 ‘(his mouth) opened’), us-luknodedun
(4x), — (Katz 2016: 125f.; see also Bucsko 2011: 110)
fra-qistnan* ‘get (to be) lost, perish’, 3sg fraqistnoda (Jn 17:12) ‘perished, is lost’, fraqist-
nodedun (1Cor 15:18A) ‘perished, are lost’, —
ga-waknan* ‘wake up’ [ingressive] occurs only one time: þai miþ imma wesun kau-
ridai slepa: gawaknandans þan gase un wulþu is (Lk 9:32) ‘those with him were
overwhelmed by sleep: waking up then they saw his glory’
weihnan* (1x) ‘become sanctified’, the inchoative counterpart to (ga)weihan ‘consecrate’
aigan* (prt prs) ‘own, possess, have’ (rarely negated, requires an object, which is often
an animal or kinship term: Häusler 2004); prefixed faír-áihan (1Cor 10:21A) ‘take
16 None of the three verbs in -atjan (GGS 174) take prefixes; cf. kaupatjan (Mk 14:65) ‘strike with fists’
(plus three other forms), lauhatjan*, only PrP nom sg f lauhatjandei (Lk 17:24) ‘flashing’ (of lightning).
This could be an accident of the small corpus, but is more likely semantic. All three are iterative.
5.23 The preterite present 209
part in, partake of, share in’ is nonstative and idiomatic (West 1982: 159; Bucsko
2011: 44, 89f.)
ga-daursan (prt prs) ‘be bold, have confidence, dare’ (no additional prefixes)
dugan* (prt prs) ‘be useful, beneficial’ (2x; no prefixes)
fijan (wk 3) ‘hate’ (well attested; no prefixes)
frijon (wk 2) ‘love’ (freq; no prefixes)
hatan* (wk 3) and hatjan* (wk 1) ‘hate’: only PrP masc pl gen hatandane (Lk 1:71),
dat hatjandam (Mt 5:44 and a margin gloss of fijandam at Lk 6:27), acc hatandans
(Lk 6:27) (no prefixed forms)
1. kunnan (prt prs) ‘be acquainted, know (how)’ (well attested; also fra- ‘spurn, dis-
dain, despise’: Bucsko 2011: 93; ga- (4x, 1 dupl) ‘subject, put under; submit, concede’:
Bucsko 2011: 97f.) (greater detail on all of the forms in Elkin 1954: 295–304)
ga-laubjan (wk 1) ‘believe’ (freq; no additional prefixes); construed with acc of the
entity or person (§4.43); in the sense of ‘believe in’ dat §4.43, du §6.9, or in
(Borrmann 1892: 30)
liban (wk 3) ‘live’ (freq, plus miþ- 1pl miþ-libam 2Tim 2:11B ‘live with’)
magan* (prt prs) ‘be able’ (freq): one prefixed form: 3sg ga-mag Gal 5:6B [has power,
is valid] ‘matters, counts for’ (Sturtevant 1937: 182)
1. munan* (prt prs) ‘think, believe’ and its prefixed form ga-munan ‘remember’
siukan (§5.6) ‘be sick, weak’ (cf. Rousseau 2012: 129)
skulan* (prt prs) ‘owe; must’, imminent certainty (freq; no prefixes)
þaurban* (prt prs) ‘need’ (no prefixes)
þugkjan* (wk 1 -C-) ‘have the impression, appear, suppose, deem’; impers ‘seem’ (well
attested; no prefixes)
wiljan (irreg §5.30) ‘will, be willing, wish, want’ (freq; no prefixes)
1. witan (prt prs) ‘know’ (freq); the only prefixed form is 1sg miþ-wait 1Cor 4:4A ‘am
aware, conscious’: nih waiht auk mis silbin miþwait ‘for I am not aware of anything
against me’, a precise calque on Gk. oudèn gàr emautõi súnoida ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 351)
17 As to origin, Randall & Jones (2015) build on unreduplicated statives, like Ved. śáye ‘lies’ (< *kéy-o+i),
with personal endings *-h2e, *-th2e, *-e/o, as on the Germanic prt prs verbs, but (i) these are residual
present middles not resultatives, (ii) the PIE stative category is doubtful (MPIE 4.3.3, w. lit; Jasanoff,
forthcoming), and (iii) the most precise cognates are reduplicated. Some 9 of the 15 Proto-Germanic
preterite presents match reduplicated perfects elsewhere (Birkmann 1987; LHE2 178f., 290ff.). See witan
in App. The domain of reduplication was highly restricted in the IE languages of Europe (Ramat 2008).
210 The verbal system
In general, imperatives are rare in this class. The modal verbs in Proto-Germanic
had participles but no imperatives (Cuendet 1924) and no infinitives (Coupé & van
Kemenade 2009). Optatives are substituted for imperatives, e.g. gamuneis (2Tim 2:8B)
‘remember’, þata kunneis (2Tim 3:1A/B) ‘understand, know this’, etc. (cf. GGS 159).
Ogs ‘be afraid’ is the only exception, but even that verb uses an optative ogeiþ in place
of an imperative plural (see ogan* §5.24). It was long ago suggested (e.g. Jacobsohn
1913, w. lit) that ogs could go back to a subjunctive *āgh-e-s(i) (Bammesberger 1986c;
cf. Sturtevant 1952: 52) or an injunctive (LHE2 292).
Forms of áih exhibit some leveling, e.g. áigum (Lk 3:8, Jn 8:41) ~ áihum (Jn 19:7, Gal
2:4A/B), áigands (4x) / nom pl m áihandans (2Kor 6:10A/B). One factor might be the
lack of an apophonic alternation, in contrast to þarf / þaúrbum, etc. (Sturtevant 1931:
57), but Randall & Jones (2015: 170) reconstruct stative *hoik-é / hik-ré ‘own’ to
eventive *heik- ‘acquire’ (LIV 223; differently EDPG 8). The infinitive occurs only in
the sole form attested of prefixed faír-áihan (1Cor 10:21A) ‘take part in, partake of,
share in’.
Dugan* (2x) attests only one form: 3sg daug (1Cor 10:23A, 2Tim 2:14B) ‘is useful,
expedient, beneficial, advantageous’, e.g. ni all daug (1Cor 10:23A) ‘not everything is
helpful’.
Ga-daursan (2Cor 10:2B, Phil 1:14B) ‘be bold, show confidence, dare’ has 1sg gadars
(2Cor 11:21B), 3sg gadars (1Cor 6:1A), 1pl gadaursum (2Cor 10:12B), 1sg opt gadaursjau
(Eph 6:20B), 3sg pret gadaursta (Mk 12:34), 3pl pret gadaurstedun (Lk 20:40).
nonpast
sg 1 wissedjáu
2 wissedeis áihtedeis
3 wissedi kunþedeiþ mahtedi skuldedi
pl 1
2 skuldedeiþ
3 wissedeina mahtedeina
participles
Magan* ‘can’ has duals magu, maguts (§5.31), and a ‘Late’ Gothic 3pl pret opt
mahtede|deina (2Cor 3:7B) ‘(so that) they could’ (Sturtevant 1951: 50f.).
1. Witan ‘know’ also has a 2du wituts <wituþs> (§5.31).
The preterite participles sometimes have special meanings, e.g. kunþs ‘known’,
þaúrfts* ‘necessary; useful’, skulds ‘obliged, obligated; guilty’.
18 A nonpast opt kunnjai ‘(that) I might know’ is sometimes cited (from Streitberg), but it is a misread-
ing for kunnjáu at Col 4:8A/B, a mistake based on a misinterpretation of the ambiguous Greek manuscript
form as 1sg gnõ rather than 3sg gnõi (Snædal 2006, w. lit). This is because the long diph-
thong was monophthongized by mid c1 BCE, and the iota ceased to be written. At a later time it was
restored orthographically and written as a subscript ( ) for heuristic purposes (Miller 2014a: 54f., w. lit).
The domain of reduplication was highly restricted in the IE languages of Europe (Ramat 2008).
212 The verbal system
The preterite participle correlates inversely with auxiliary use of the preterite
presents (Wilmanns 1906: 101; Rauch 1972: 229). For the syntax and functions of the
modal verbs see Ambrosini (1965), Joseph (1981), Berard (1993a: 63–71), Ferraresi
(1998), Rousseau (2003, 2012: 254–63).
There are specific contexts in which the preterite presents and other verbs can func-
tion as modals (Takahaši 1982/83). For instance, possibility can be expressed by
magan*, 1.kunnan, leisan*, witan, binauhan*; necessity by skulan*, þaurban*; intent by
wiljan, 2.munan, gadaursan, ogan*/agan*. See also Rousseau (2012: 255–62; 2016:
479–505).
Ga-motan* ‘be admitted, find room’ occurs only three times: 3sg waurd mein ni
gamot in izwis (Jn 8:37) ‘my word has no place in you’, 1pl opt gamoteima in izwis
(2Cor 7:2A/B) ‘let us be admitted in you’ (i.e. ‘make room for us in your hearts’), 3pl
pret ni gamostedun nih at daura ‘there was no room, not even at (outside) the door’.
Gamostedun is an innovation (GGS 159; cf. §2.3).
Lais (2x) ‘I know’ translates Gk. oĩda ‘id.’ and occurs only in the 1sg: lais jah haun-
jan mik, lais jah ufarassu haban (Phil 4:12B) ‘I know both being humbled and having
an overabundance’.
1. Kunnan ‘to know’ mostly translates Gk. oĩda ‘I know’ (Marold 1881a: 161–7;
Pollak 1929: 4), but also gi(g)nō skein ‘(get to) know’ and many other Greek verbs
(Weißgräber 1929: 1–25; Elkin 1954: 295–304). The favored complement is DP/NP, as
in ni kann þana f(rauja)n (Bl 2v.20 = Ex 5:2) ‘I do not know the Lord’. Clausal comple-
ments with (þat)ei are rarer, e.g. kunnuþ þatei ne a ist asans (Mk 13:28) ‘you know
that summer is near’. The preterite can render a Greek present, as in þizei weis kunþe-
dum attan jah aiþein (Jn 6:42) ‘whose father and mother we knew’ for Gk. oídamen
‘we know’ (Pollak 1929: 7), for which Pollak (p. 25) has no explanation.19 Since kun-
nan represents a durative state (ibid. 24), the meaning is ‘whose father and mother we
have (long) known’; cf. us barniskja weihos bokos kunþes (2Tim 3:15A/B) ‘from infancy
you have known the sacred writings’ with pret kunþes rendering Gk. oĩdas ‘you
know’.
1. Munan* ‘think, believe’ occurs in 1sg man (7x, 2 dupl), 3sg opt muni (2Cor
11:16B, 2Cor 12:6A/B), 1sg pret munda (Phil 2:25B), 3pl pret mundedun (Jn 13:29),
various forms of the PrP munands, and the PPP munds (Lk 3:23): swaei sunus munds
was Iosefis ‘as he was thought (to be) the son of Joseph’. Prefixed ga-munan (21x, 3dupl)
‘remember’ occurs in the infinitive (Lk 1:72, 1Cor 15:2A) (Elkin 1954: 313ff.).
Nauhan* has only prefixed forms, bi-nauhan* and ga-nauhan*. Bi-nauhan* attests
3sg bi-nah ‘is permissible, permitted’ and PPP nom sg n bi-nauht. For the switch in
tense in the first example below contrast Gk. éx-estin ‘is permitted’, Lat. licent ‘are
permitted’. For the second, the Greek MSS have many variants, and the Gothic trans-
lates one that is not in the Byzantine main text (sumphérei ‘is expedient’).20
all binah, akei ni all daug; all mis binauht ist (1Cor 10:23A)
‘all is permissible, but not everything is advantageous; all has been allowed to me’
ƕopan binah, akei ni batizo ist (2Cor 12:1B)
‘it is necessary [Gk. deĩ, Lat. oportet ] to brag/boast, but it is not better’
Ga-nauhan* has only 3sg ga-nah (4x, 2 dupl) ‘is sufficient, enough; suffices’, which
can take dat or acc complements: ganah þamma swaleikamma andabeit þata (2Cor
2:6B) ‘sufficient for such a one as this (dat) is this censure’; ganah þuk ansts meina
(2Cor 12:9A/B) ‘my grace is enough for you (acc)’ (cf. GCS 192). For the accusative
Sturtevant (1945b: 104f.) compares experiencer verbs (§4.10).
Skulan* ‘owe; must’ has no PrP, but the PP skulds is well attested. For ‘owe’, cf. an
filu skalt (Lk 16:7) ‘how much do you owe?’ (on the legal status of debt and obligation,
see Pausch 1954: 61ff.). For necessity, cf. skal þus a qiþan (Lk 7:40) ‘I have to tell
you something’ (§3.17). In the sense of futurity, but not translating a Greek future
20 The passages with bi-nauhan* are interesting, not just in the rarity of the verb, but also in the seman-
tic range from ‘is permissible’ to ‘is necessary’. OE be-nugan means ‘need, require, want; enjoy’ (Bosworth
& Toller 1882–98: 84) and a *nugan- ‘suffice’ is reconstructed for Germanic (EDPG 392f.). In all of its other
occurrences, Gk. éx-estin ‘is permitted, lawful’ is translated into Gothic with a 3rd person impersonal
form of skulan* ‘owe; must; be lawful’. This suggests a more liberal interpretation of éx-estin.
214 The verbal system
(Martellotti 1975), apart from skuli (§11.14) for Gk. éstai (Lk 1:66) ‘shall be’ (Kleyner
2015: 385, 391), skulan* is used in the 3rd person vs. the optative in the 1st and 2nd
(Rousseau 2012: 90). Skulan* + inf most freq renders Gk. méllein denoting imminent
(future) certainty (Wells 2009), and is therefore never negated in the Gospels (Leiss
2018). Note also adre sa skuli gaggan (Jn 7:35) ‘where should he go?’ for Gk. poũ
hoũtos méllei poreúesthai ‘where does this (man) intend to travel?’ (§9.35). The 3rd
person and the pret are deontic with a perfective or telic inf, e.g. skal gaswiltan
(Jn 19:7) ‘he must die’, sa ist Helias, saei skulda qiman (Mt 11:14) ‘he (John) is the Elijah
who was to come (before the kingdom)’ (cf. Mittner 1939: 77ff.; Meerwein 1977: 24ff.;
Feuillet 2014: 41; Leiss 2018).
Þaúrban* (19x, 2 dupl) ‘need’ is construed absolutely, e.g. þan þaurfta jah gredags
was (Mk 2:25) ‘when he was in need and hungry’, with genitive objects (§4.29), with
infinitival complements, e.g. ni þaurbum meljan izwis (1Thess 4:9B) ‘we do not need
to write to you’, and with finite clauses: ni þaurbum ei izwis meljaima (1Thess 5:1B) ‘id.’
(lit. ‘we do not need that we write to you’).
The PrP has only one form: dat sg m þaúrbandin (Eph 4:28A/B). The expected PPP
þaúrfts* is an adjective (1Cor 12:22A ‘necessary, indispensable’, 2Tim 3:16A/B ‘useful,
profitable’) with a comparative nom sg n þaúrftozo (Phil 1:24B) ‘more necessary’.
1. Witan ‘know’ translates Gk. gi(g)nōskein ‘(get to) know’ (Marold 1881a: 161–71),
oĩda ‘I know’ (Pollak 1929: 4), etc. (Elkin 1954: 338–42). Note the idiomatic 2sg opt þu
witeis (Mt 27:4) = Gk. sù ópsei ‘you’ll see (to it) for yourself ’ (Seebold 1973: 162f.; Patrick
Stiles, p.c.), paralleled in Lith. tu žinokis ‘see to it yourself ’ (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.).
For the core use of 1.kunnan and 1.witan, cf. ni wait, ni kann a þu qiþis (Mk 14:68)
‘I don’t know, I don’t understand what you are saying’.
Not all preterite presents are modal verbs. Kunnan is supposedly not modal because
it combines with modals, as in aiwa magum þana wig kunnan (Jn 14:5) ‘how can we
know the way?’ (Rousseau 2012: 255). This is a dubious stipulation for several reasons.
First, verbs can have modal functions without being exclusively modal. Many examples
are documented in the history of English (Miller 2010: ii, ch. 8, w. lit). Secondly, many
languages attest several modal positions, as Dutch zou moeten kunnen ‘would might
should can’ (Miller & Wanner 2011).
The forms without -j- occur in Luke and the Epistles and are rare even there, but argue
for j being a glide (§2.3). Deviant spellings: wisum (Eph 12:3B), weisun (Neh 5:17, 6:17),
weisjau (Neh 5:14) ~ wesjau (Jn 18:36), weiseis (Jn 11:32) ~ weseis (Jn 11:21).
From the PIE point of view, im (etc.) belonged to the athematic verbs, characterized
by a different set of endings attached to the root (details in LHE2 220, 293).
21 A simple example is the English passive progressive, which had long been in existence without a
passive exponent, as shown by Shakespeare’s while grace is saying (Merchant of Venice 2.3.206).
216 The verbal system
In the case of Germanic passives, late grammaticalization may well be correct, and
has been argued in different ways for both Gothic and the rest of Germanic, but one
must not lose sight of the fact that the periphrastic structure was a replacement and
expansion of a previously existing synthetic passive.22
Katz (2016: 199) claims that Goth. wisan and wairþan must be copulas rather than
auxiliaries because of subject agreement with the participle. However, the auxiliary is
never omitted (see p. 509), and the inflected participle is retained in Icelandic, Faroese,
Nynorsk Norwegian, and Swedish. The other Germanic languages have lost the inflec-
tion (Askedal 2009: 36).
Apart from relics like OE hātte ‘am/is called’, Gothic alone preserves the inherited
mediopassive as a synthetic passive and rare deponent (cf. Harðarson 2017: 941; pace
Lühr 2017: 960) in the nonpast system, e.g. haitada ‘is/will be called’ (Mt 5:19+ [16x, 1
dupl] plus and-haitada Rom 10:10A ‘is confessed’). The following example contains
two passives.
(1) saei gabairada weihs haitada sunus gudis (Lk 1:35)
rel bear.3sg.pass holy.nom.sg.m call.3sg.pass son.nom god.gen
‘the holy one who will be born will be called the son of God’
Passive forms are well attested, especially third person, but all persons, singular and
plural (no duals), are attested in the indicative and optative. Some 75 different passive
forms of the strong verb occur, and roughly another 120 of the weak verb.23
Beside the synthetic nonpast passive type gibada ‘is (being) given’, Gothic created a
periphrastic past passive with the PPP plus ‘be’: gibans was* ‘was given, had been
given’. All then-known examples are collected in Skladny (1873: 8–11) and sorted
by verb class and verse type in Mittner (1939). The participle agrees with its subject
in gender, number, and case (but see §4.3). Waírþan ‘become’ insists on inchoativ-
ity or change of state: -gibans warþ ‘came to be given, got given’. These formations
were extended to the nonpast: gibans waírþiþ* ‘gets given’ (a very rare type: Skladny
1873: 10; Kotin 1997: 487; Vogel 2000: 12; Gippert 2016), gibans* (giban) ist ‘is
(being) given’.
In (2), the Gothic corresponds to Greek sunoikodomeĩsthe and Latin coaedificāminī,
both present tense and meaning ‘you are (being) built together’ (Wilmanns 1906: 138).
22 The uses and meanings of the passive formations in Old High German are detailed by Jones (2009)
and Rittenhouse (2014), also for Old Saxon. For the rest of Germanic, see Guxman (1964) and Harbert
(2007: 317–29). Vol. 2 of Guxman et al. (1977–8), edited by Viktorija Jarceva (1977), treats the Germanic
verb in great detail, including the periphrastic formations. See esp. the chapters ‘Tense and aspect’ by
Smirnickaja and ‘Voice’ by Guxman.
23 Skladny (1873: 3–7) sorts all the examples by mood, person, and number. Passives of the weak verbs
are sorted by class in GG (148, 156f.).
5.27 Periphrastic passives 217
Katz (2016: 230f.) interprets miþgatimridai as an adjective, but that would not license
P-incorporation (§§6.40ff.). More likely, it is encroachment on the synthetic passive.
Example (3) may be a simple inchoative in which drugkanai is adjectival rather
than participial; cf. Lat. ēbriī sunt ‘are drunk’ in both clauses (Gippert 2016: 136f.).
(3) þai–ei drugkanai wairþand
nom.pl.m-rel drunk.nom.pl.m become.3pl
nahts drugkanai wairþand (1Thess 5:7B)
night.gen.sg drunk.nom.pl.m become.3pl
‘those who get drunk get drunk at night’
This is supported by sums gredags sumz-uþ þan drugkans ist (1Cor 11:21A) ‘one [is]
hungry and another is drunk’ (Katz 2016: 176f., 232). Finally, drugkan- is the base for
drugkanei* ‘drunkenness’ (§8.5).
P(P)P + ist translates a Greek aorist 50x (Streitberg 1981: 36), usually in so-called
timeless formulas like qiþan ist ‘it is said’ (Mittner 1939: 194ff.; Feuillet 2014: 54f.), but
they are entailed-state readings (Katz 2016: 235ff.). See (4).
(4) unte galaubida ist weitwodei unsara du izwis (2Thess 1:10A)
for believe.PPP.nom.sg.f is testimony our to you
‘because our testimony to you is (in a) believed (state)’
Galaubida ist renders the Greek aor pass episteúthē = crēditum est ‘was/has been
believed’ in most Latin versions (Schröder 1957–58). The figures for Luke are
collected in Pollak (1964: 41f.): P(P)P + ist renders an aorist 6x and a perf ind 11x;
P(P)P + was all of the Greek past tenses (i.e. less perf ind) 22x, and P(P)P + warþ an
aorist 12x, impf 1x.
The contrast in the past between stative and inchoative passive is illustrated in (5)
(cf. Schröder 1957: 10; Abraham 1992: 3; Ferraresi 2005: 122; Katz 2016: 223f., 242ff.).
(5) a) unte in imma gaskapana waurþun alla . . .
for in him create.PPP.nom.pl.n become.3pl.pret all.nom.pl.n
alla þairh ina . . . gaskapana sind (Col 1:16A/B)
all.nom.pl.n through him create.PPP.nom.pl.n be.3pl
‘for in him all things were/became created . . .
all things through him are/have been created’
In (5a), gaskapana waurþun translates the Greek aor pass 3sg ektísthē ‘got (to be)
created’, and gaskapana sind renders pf 3sg éktistai ‘is created’ (as a result of a past act
of creation). In (5b), fralusans was is the result state of a completed event (‘was in a
state of having been lost’) and bigitans warþ inchoative (‘got to be in a found state’).
The first translates a Greek perfect passive (apolōlōs ẽn) and the second a Greek aorist
passive (heuréthē). For (5a) Luther has ist . . . geschaffen for both, but his rendering of
(5b) is closer to the Gothic: ‘mein Sohn . . . war verloren und ist gefunden worden’.
Generally speaking, the ‘be’ passive is stative in German but more general in Gothic
(cf. Schröder 1957: 14; Abraham 1992; Ferraresi 2005: 121–4; Pagliarulo 2008):
(6) etun jah drugkun, liugaidedun
eat.3pl.pret and drink.3pl.pret marry.3pl.pret
jah liugaidos wesun (Lk 17:27)
and marry.PPP.nom.pl.f were.3pl
‘they ate and drank, married, and (females) were given in marriage’
That all of these require a werden passive in German (cf. Zieglschmid 1931: 393; GK
79) illustrates the crucial difference. The wairþan passive in Gothic is restricted to
inchoative or change of state passives (one of the functions of the Greek aorist pas-
sive), while the ‘be’ passive is everything else. In (6) and (7), which translate the Greek
imperfect passives exegamízonto ‘were (being) married’ and ebaptízonto ‘were (being)
baptized’, the aspect might be unbounded.
In terms of analysis, the wisan passive is a caused result state, or in the terminology
of Katz (2016: 206), an entailed-state resultative. He calls the wairþan passive an
attained-state resultative.24 Both contain [fient] (§5.14), but differ from -nan
verbs in being agentive passives.
24 For Katz (2016: 266), both contain VoiceP headed by wairþ- or wis-, which makes no sense because
wairþan must head the fientive projection. Katz lacks the higher [ag/caus] projection, which introduces
a causing event, separate from VoiceP, which introduces a theta role (Pylkkänen 2008). Since this is not
the place for a detailed theoretical critique, the reader is referred to the references and analyses in Miller
(2010: ii. ch. 6; 2014b: ch. 4).
5.28 Infinitival passives and passive infinitives 219
Descriptively, for a wairþan passive a state exists at narrative time, and wairþan
signals a transition event followed by a new state. For a wisan passive there exists a
completed event and, at narrative time a new state persists (Katz 2016: 239). With
wisan in the nonpast, the structure is present perfect, and in the preterite past perfect
(ibid. 258).
In summary, the German werden passive is actional/eventive, the sein ‘be’ passive is
stative, and, with unaccusative verbs, nonpassive perfect (Leiss 1992). In Gothic, the
‘be’ passive is both stative and eventive while the wairþan passive is inchoative or
indicates change of state.
The ten Greek infinitives (counting tense and voice) versus one in Gothic created
translation difficulties (Greiner 1992). Considering just voice to the exclusion of
aspect, Berard (1993a: 13ff.) lists fourteen means Gothic employed to render Greek
infinitives. One problem was solved by the fact that, although Gothic had no syn-
thetic passive infinitive, the -an construct was underspecified for voice (cf. Bernhardt
1885: 101f.; GE 209f.; Klein 1992a: 342, 360). It translated passives especially with
verbs of willing, desiring, asking, daring, needing, seeking, and motion (Skladny
1873: 18f.).
Syntactically passive infinitives include (10) and (11).
(10) sa sunus mans atgibada du ushramjan (Mt 26:2C)
D.nom.sg.m son man.gen give.over.3sg.pass to crucify.inf
‘the son of man is handed over to crucify (= to be crucified)’ (Melazzo 2004: 367)
[Gk. ho huiòs toũ anthrō pou paradídotai eis tò staurōthẽnai (aor pass inf) ‘id.’]
Daupjan translates Gk. aor pass inf baptisthẽnai ‘to be baptized’. Not only are forms of
daupjan frequently used passively (Berard 1993a: 261f.), but passivity is also indicated
by fram + dat, the most frequent Gothic expression of the agent ‘by’-phrase (§6.12).
In (12), leikinon (for lekinon*) ‘to heal, cure’ renders the Greek passive infinitive
therapeúesthai ‘to be healed’ (Grimm 1837: 58; Rousseau 2012: 200).
(12) ga-runn-un hiuhmans managai hausjon
prfx-ran-3pl multitudes.nom.pl.m great.nom.pl.m hear.inf
jah leikin-on fram imma (Lk 5:15)
and heal-inf by him
‘great multitudes came together to hear and to be healed by him’
220 The verbal system
Atwopjan translates a Greek aorist passive infinitive (phōnēthẽnai ‘to be called’), and
Berard (1993a: 234) not unambiguously favors the passive interpretation. As in
many other Germanic languages, the Gothic structure may involve control by a
null object: ‘he ordered (someonex) [PROx] to call him forth’ (Joseph 1981: 369;
cf. Harbert 2007: 331).
Two adjectival forms, skulds ‘obliged’ and mahts ‘able’, have a special status in impart-
ing a passive interpretation to the infinitive, as in (16). This section addresses the
theoretical basis of this construction.
(16) skulds ist us-hauhjan sa sunus mans (Jn 12:34)
obliged.nom.sg.m is up-lift.inf D son.nom.sg man.gen.sg
‘the son of man must be lifted up’
25 The framed structure þo . . . garehsn has other parallels in Skeireins, e.g. þo faura jū us anastodeinai
garaidon garehsn (1.3.14ff.) ‘(to violate) the beforehand already from the beginning ordained plan’
(McKnight 1897a: 159; Lenk 1910: 268). The construction, common in the Gothic Bible, is typically Greek
(McKnight 1897b: 207), but the appositionality of þo . . . garehsn in (14) to þata ‘this, it’ is a widespread
type in early Germanic poetic texts (Lenk 1910: 266).
5.29 Skulds and mahts 221
Although sa sunus is nominative case and formally the subject of the main clause, ‘the
son of man’ is thematic object of ushauhjan, the one to be lifted up (Joseph 1981: 373).
Joseph analyzes such examples as object-to-subject raising without passivization (cf.
Sturtevant 1925: 504ff.; Harbert 1978: 161; tough movement in Harbert 2007: 265f.).
The warrant, not discussed by Joseph, is that ‘be’ is a raising verb and adjectives like
skuld- ‘necessary’ and maht- ‘able, possible’ (formally passive participles) do not have
a case feature to assign. On this analysis, the more precise English equivalent would
be the son of man is necessary to lift up.
In (17), manna is nominative and mahts is in agreement with it, showing that ‘man’
is raised to a position where nominative (subject) case is assigned/valued.
(17) ƕaiwa mahts ist manna | gabairan
how possible.nom.sg.m is man.nom.sg bear.inf
alþeis | wisands (Sk 2.2.11ff.)
old.nom.sg.m being.nom.sg.m
‘how can a man be born being old?’
A few lines later the verse is repeated with a variant: aiwa | mahts ist manna | alþeis
wisands ga|bairan (Sk 2.2.25–2.3.3) ‘id.’. (17) corresponds better to the Gk. põs dúnatai
ánthrōpos gennēthẽnai gérōn ō n (Jn 3:4) ‘how can a man be born being old?’. The vari-
ant citation corresponds to one Greek witness (Falluomini 2016a: 281, 286f.).26
With (17), compare (18), where mahta modifies qino ‘woman’ earlier in the sentence:
(18) ni mahta was fram ainomehun ga-leikin-on (Lk 8:43)
neg possible.nom.sg.f was by anyone prfx-heal-inf
‘she could not be healed by anyone’ (Joseph 1981: 373)
The English equivalent she was impossible to heal is incompatible with an agent ‘by’ phrase,
because the lower verb is not passivized, suggesting that in Gothic it might be. Labeling
the Gothic fram phrase a Greek calque (Joseph 1981: 376) implies potential ungram-
maticality, but agentive fram is not infrequent with both maht- (18) and skuld- (20).
For an example with neuter maht, consider (19).
(19) maht wesi þata balsan frabugjan
possible.nom.sg.n be.3sg.pret.opt D.acc.sg.n perfume.acc.sg sell.inf
in managizo þau þrija hunda skatte (Mk 14:5)
for more than three hundred denarii
‘it would have been possible to sell the perfume for more than 300 denarii’
26 The sentence after (17) and its variant have an unambiguous passive: ibai mag | in wamba aiþeins |
seinaizos aftra | galeiþan jah ga|bairaidau (Sk 2.3.3–7 = 2.2.13–17 with jag for jah) ‘surely he cannot enter
his mother’s womb again and be reborn, can he’. Finite gabairaidau translates a Greek passive infinitive
gennēthẽnai ‘to be born’ (Marold 1892: 71). A Germanic idiom may have blocked coordination of a passive
infinitive with an actively interpreted one (Bennett 1960: 36; Harbert 2007: 333, both w. lit; more examples
in Bernhardt 1885: 105), but the optative has another explanation (§9.54). Infinitives with active followed
by passive interpretation occur (Bernhardt 1885: 101f.), e.g. galeiþan in þiudangardja gudis, þau . . . atwair-
pan in gaiainnan (Mk 9:47) ‘to enter the kingdom of God rather than . . . to be cast into hell’.
222 The verbal system
Because of the ambiguity of neuters (§9.38), this can be interpreted passively: ‘this
ointment might have been sold . . . ’ (Douse 1886: 259; Sturtevant 1925: 505; cf. GrGS
140). A passive is more compatible with Gk. ēdúnato . . . prathẽnai ‘could have (been)
sold’ and Lat. poterat . . . vaenundārī ‘id.’. Snædal takes þata balsan as accusative, implying
an active structure, but other forms of maht passivize the infinitive, as in (18).
In all three occurrences, neuter maht is never unequivocally impersonal (Köhler
1867: 425; Gering 1874: 421ff.; pace Peeters 1974a); cf. ni maht ist gatairan þata gamelido
(Jn 10:35) ‘it is not permitted to break the scripture’ or ‘the scripture cannot be
annulled’, for which Luther uses a passive (Peeters 1974a: 113) and the Greek and Latin
texts have passives, but gamelido is classified as accusative by Snædal. The only other
occurrence of maht ist is arjatoh waur|de at mannam innu|man maht ist (Sk 6.2.21ff.)
‘every statement derived from men can be changed’ (tr. Bennett 1960: 72), for which
arjatoh is classified as nominative. As a passive participle (cf. Gering 1874: 423),
in-numan differs from the infinitives in the other examples, but infinitives are the
norm with maht- in passive structures. The ambiguity of neuters permits a passive
interpretation with balsan and gamelido as nominative.
The remainder of this section will look at forms of skal and skulds.
(20) ik skulds was fram izwis gakannjan (2Cor 12:11A/B)
I obliged.nom.sg.m was.1sg by you.dat.pl recognize.inf
‘I ought to have been commended (lit. recognized) by you’ (Ambrosini 1969: 61f.)
That the infinitival clause was passive is assumed without argument by Ferraresi
(1998). Berard (1993a: 90f., 319ff.) argues for passivization and is unsure about raising.
Suzuki (1987b) argues against raising and for passivization alone. His claim is that,
since no other adjectives license a passive interpretation of the infinitive,27 syntactic
passivization can be due to the morphological passives maht-, skuld-. The issue is
whether the proper interpretation is ‘he is owed to arrest’ (cf. Harbert 2007: 266) or
‘he is owed to be arrested’. Baidiþs was bimaitan (Gal 2:3A/B) ‘he was compelled to be
circumcised’ argues for the double passive. Baidiþs is another passive participle.
Example (21) illustrates that adjectival skuld- licenses a passive interpretation of
transitive verbs while the corresponding verbal forms do not (Martellotti 1975: 354f.;
Joseph 1981: 370).
(21) skal sunus mans filu winnan jah uskiusan skulds ist (Mk 8:31)
must son of.man much suffer.inf and reject.inf obliged is
‘the son of man must suffer much and must be rejected’
The difference between skal with an active interpretation of the infinitive and skulds
with passive was noted by the tradition (e.g. Skladny 1873: 18; Douse 1886: 259).
There is also a difference between the personal and the impersonal construction
with these adjectives, but only in the neuter, as in (22) and (23).
27 Suzuki ignores goþ þus ist galeiþan . . . þau . . . gawairpan in gaiainnan (Mk 9:45) ‘it is good for you to
enter . . . than to be cast into hell (Gehenna)’; cf. þau . . . atwairpan . . . (Mk 9:47) ‘id.’ (Skladny 1873: 18f.).
5.29 Skulds and mahts 223
Gothic had no native word for ‘treasury’ (Laird 1940: 87f.). While lagjan could be the
grammatical subject (‘putting them . . . is not legal’), it is less likely. Note also (24).
(24) ei witeis ƕaiwa skuld ist in garda gudis usmitan
comp know.2sg.opt how obliged is in house god.gen behave.inf
‘that you may know how it is necessary (Gk. deĩ ) to behave in the house of God’
(1Tim 3:15A)
Further examples are discussed by Suzuki (1987b: 2). The impersonal use of neuter
skuld is frequent and a function of the case ambiguity of neuters, which permits the
thematic object to be the syntactic subject or object with no morphological difference
(§9.38; see Miller 2001; 2010: ii. 231, 246–51).
As noted above, the periphrastic passive could be generalized outside of the preter-
ite system, which allowed for a nonpast passive infinitive, as in (25).
(25) skal sunus mans manag winnan
must son.nom.sg man.gen.sg much.acc.sg.n suffer.inf
jah uskusans fram sinistam wairþan (Lk 9:22)
and rejected.nom.sg.m by elders.dat.pl become.inf
‘the son of man must suffer much and be rejected by the elders’
With skal, infinitives are active. For a passive interpretation, the periphrastic passive
infinitive is here used (Skladny 1873: 18; Suzuki 1987b: 3). Uskusans . . . wairþan trans-
lates the Greek aor pass inf apodokimasthẽnai (apodokimázein ‘to reject’) or Lat.
reprobārī ‘to be rejected’. The linear order in Gothic differs from both the Greek and
Latin versions, where the single verb precedes the agent ‘by’ phrases. At 1Cor 9:27A,
uskusans wairþau translates a Greek adjectival phrase adókimos génōmai (Lat. repro-
bus efficiar) ‘I may be unapproved/disqualified/rejected’. For this reason, and the fact
that uskiusan can take dative complements (§4.44), Gippert (2016: 138) claims that in
(25) uskusans must be an adjective rather than a passive. Although dative objects
frequently alternate with passive nominative subjects in Gothic (§§4.43ff.), the more
common syntax for (25) appears in the variant (26), in which a finite passive replaces
a passive infinitive or passive interpretation of an infinitive.
224 The verbal system
(26) skal manag gaþulan jah uskiusada fram þamma kunja (Lk 17:25)
must much suffer.inf and reject.3sg.pass by D.dat generation.dat
‘he must suffer much, and be (lit. is) rejected by this generation’
The only participle is wiljands ‘willing’ with six different case forms attested. A 2du
wileits is attested at Mk 10:36.
28 The claim by Meillet (1908–9: 78–86) that two people of mixed sex require the plural is based on
Lk 2:48, Jn 9:18 (with no contradictory passages), and not obeyed elsewhere in Germanic (see Seppänen).
5.31 The dual 225
The second person dual of the nonpast system ends in -ats (see Bammesberger
1983), the most frequent of all the dual forms. There is no formal difference between
the indicative and the imperative dual. The first person ends in -os, e.g. bidjos ‘we
two ask’. The first person dual of the preterite is not attested. Based on magu ‘we two
can’ and siju ‘we two are’, it should end in -u, given that the 2du pret gahausideduts
‘you two heard’ is parallel to maguts ‘you two can’. The optative has 1du -aiwa (e.g.
sitaiwa ‘that we two sit’) and 2du -aits (e.g. qiþaits ‘you two should say’). There is no
third person dual because nouns and third person pronouns lost the dual. Examples
follow.29
(27) and-bindats (Lk 19:33) ‘you two untie’
duƕe andbindats þana fulan?
‘why are you two untying the colt?’
(28) at-tiuhats (Mk 11:2) ‘you two bring here’ (impv ‘bring you two (here)’)
andbindandans ina attiuhats
‘untying him (the colt), bring you two him here’
(33) gaggats (4x) ‘you two go’ (all impv: ‘go you two’)
a) gaggats in þo wiþrawairþon haim (Lk 19:30)
‘go you two to the next village’
b) gaggats in haim þo wiþrawairþon iggqis (Mk 11:2)
‘go you two to the village ahead of you two’
29 Potential 3rd person duals are invariably in the plural, as in ibai mag blinds blindana tiuhan? niu bai
in dal gadriusand (Lk 6:39) ‘a blind man can’t lead a blind man, can he? won’t both fall [3pl] into a ditch?’.
Thanks to Patrick Stiles (p.c.) for this example.
226 The verbal system
(39) ga-teihats (Lk 7:22) ‘you two tell’ (impv ‘tell you two’)
gateihats Iohannen þatei gaseƕuts jah gahausideduts
‘tell you two John what you two saw and heard’
30 For ains ‘one; only’ in focused position as the host of interrogative -u, see Buzzoni (2009: 39).
5.31 The dual 227
(45) sai ats (Mt 9:30) ‘you two see’ (impv ‘see you two’)
jah inagida ins Iesus qiþands: saiƕats ei manna ni witi
‘and Jesus admonished them, saying, See to it that no one knows (about this)’
31 The Greek ambiguity of ho ku rios autoũ khreíān ékhei ‘the Lord has need of it’ or ‘the Lord desires it’
is rendered in Gothic by gairneiþ ‘desires’ (Burkitt 1926: 95), usually assumed to be influenced by dēsīderat
‘id.’ in many Vet. Lat. MSS (e.g. Burton 2002: 413; Francovich Onesti 2011: 208).
32 This is supposedly a non-Arian rendering (Stutz 1966: 6), but given the grammatical choices (dual
or plural), use of the dual could insist that there are two beings, an implicit denial of the trinity. A plural verb
would suggest that all of them are one, allowing for a trinity interpretation, but Schäferdiek (2002: 328)
argues that the duality was part of a more general belief. In all such passages, Gothic insists on duality, e.g.
ei sijaina ain, swaswe wit ain siju (Jn 17:22) ‘that they may be one, just as we two are—the two of us—one’.
The use of the neuter ain (= Gk. hén, Vulg., Vet. Lat. ūnum; cf. VL 1963: 116) implies ‘one entity’, as opposed
to the masculine form which would imply one person/being. Only at Gal 3:28 does Greek use masculine
heĩs ‘one’ (v.l. hén), but the Latin and Gothic translations use the neuter form. Whatever ‘one’ means, the Goths
insisted it did not mean ‘the same’; contrast gatawida þo ba du samin (Eph 2:14A/B) ‘he made them both
(Jews and Gentiles) into the same’, where du samin [to same] translates Gk. hén, Lat. ūnum ‘one’ (neuter).
228 The verbal system
In general, with continuity from past to present, Greek uses the present and Gothic
the preterite (Kapteijn 1911: 320; Sturtevant 1930: 102ff.; Senn 1934):
(53) swa filu jere skalkinoda þus (Lk 15:29)
‘for so many years I’ve been serving you’
[Gk. tosaũta étē douleúō soi ‘for so many years I serve you’]
No Greek variants are attested for (54) (Carla Falluomini, p.c.). Pollak (1929: 7, 25) has
no explanation. Crellin (2014: 26, 37) claims this example supports the idea that the
perfect denotes a property of the subject and encapsulates both (result) state and
anterior readings. This formulation follows from the fact that states have duration.
Senn (1934) observes that Gothic patterns with modern English on use of the perfect,
in place of the inclusive present in German, for instance.
(55) ei þatei anabudum izwis, jah taujiþ jah taujan habaiþ (2Thess 3:4B)
‘that what we have commanded you, you both do and will continue to do’
[Gk. hóti hà paraggélomen hūmĩn, kaì poieĩte kaì poiēsete
‘that (the things) which we command you, you both do and will do’]
(57) ni þatei attan seƕi ƕas, nibai saei was fram attin, sa saƕ attan (Jn 6:46)
‘not that anyone has seen the father, except him who was from the father,
he has seen the father’
[Gk. oukh hóti tòn patéra tis heō raken, ei mē ho ōn parà toũ theoũ,
hoũtos heō raken tòn patéra]
The Greek text has a PrP, and the Vet. Lat. maunuscripts consistently have est ‘is’: nōn
quia patrem vīdit quisquam, nisi is, quī est ā deō, hic vīdit patrem ‘not that anyone has
seen the father, except the one who is from God, he has seen the father’. Since Gothic
fram attin / guda ‘from the father/God’ can be accompanied by a nonpast as well as
the preterite, there is no special idiomatic use of tense in (57).
230 The verbal system
In (59) Gothic uses two verbs to insist on continuity from past to present.
(59) barnilo, þu sinteino miþ mis ((wast jah)) is (Lk 15:31)
‘son, always with me you were and are’
[Gk. sù pántote met’ emoũ eĩ ‘you always are with me’]
A number of Vet. Lat. MSS (VL 1976: 183) have tū mēcum semper fuistī (~ fuistī
semper) et es ‘you were always with me and (still) are’ (Marold 1883: 64f.).
In (60), a Gothic nonpast tense renders a Greek aorist participle.
(60) saei bigitiþ saiwala seina, fraqisteiþ izai;
jah saei fraqisteiþ saiwalai seinai in meina, bigitiþ þo (Mt 10:39)
[Gk. ho heurōn tēn psūkhēn autoũ apolései autēn·
kaì ho apolésās tēn psūkhēn autoũ héneken emoũ heurēsei autēn]
[Lat. quī invenit animam suam, perdet illam:
et quī perdiderit animam suam propter mē, inveniet eam]
‘whoever finds his life will lose it;
and whoever loses his life on my account will find it’
The aorist participle apolésās is bounded,34 and the time reference of the sentence is
futuristic, as indicated by heurēsei ‘will find’ and the Latin fut perf perdiderit ‘will
have lost’ and fut inveniet ‘will find’. Consequently, the Gothic nonpasts fraqisteiþ
and bigitiþ are entirely expected.
Since the Gothic PrP is timeless in rhetorical statements (Kapteijn 1911: 281, w. lit),
there is no surprise in (61), where a PrP renders an aorist participle.
34 Greek participles are primarily aspectual, only the future participle being mainly temporal. The
present participle expresses continuance and coincidence (more rarely antecedence or subsequence)
with the main verb. The aorist participle normally expresses completion and, as such, antecedence, but it
can also be ingressive or complexive, surveying a past action from beginning to end. Contextually, the
aorist participle can express coincidence or (rarely) subsequence, the latter when its action is past with
reference to the present or future. The perfect participle is normally resultative (Smyth & Messing 1956:
419f., 430f.).
5.32 Tense and mood mismatches 231
A well-known Gothic rule (e.g. Bennett 1959b: 35; Harbert 1978: 277f.; Katz 2016:
158f.) involves the use of an (especially preceding) PrP when the tense and mood are
the same as that in the finite clause. In (62) and (63), a Gothic PrP translates a Greek
aorist participle.
(62) nam hlaif | jah awiliudonds gabrak jah qaþ (1Cor 11:23f.A)
‘he took the bread and gave (lit. giving) thanks, broke (it), and said’
[Gk. élaben árton, kaì eukharistesās éklasen, kaì eĩpen
‘he took the bread, and (after) having given thanks, broke (it), and said’]
A relative clause can translate a Greek participle to clarify temporal and modal
nuances (Kapteijn 1911: 283), as in (64).
(64) all þatei faurlagjaidau izwis matjaiþ (1Cor 10:27A)
‘all that may be set before you, you should eat’
[Gk. pãn tò paratithémenon hūmĩn esthíete: lit. ‘all the set before you eat’]
In (65), nonpast kunnuþ ‘you know’ properly corresponds to perfects for which the
presents are inchoative ‘get to know’.
(65) jah ni kunnuþ ina (Jn 8:55)
‘and you do not know him’
[Gk. kai ouk egnō kate autón, Vulg. et nōn cognōvistis eum ‘and you do not know him’]
For Marold (1892: 73), Gothic follows Vet. Lat. nōn scītis eum, or nescītis eum, but this
is unnecessary. These mean the same thing with the present tense of scīre, which in CL
was factive.
A textual problem occurs in jah gasai iþ ina (Jn 14:7) ‘and you (will) see him’ vs.
Gk. kaì heōrákate autón ‘and you have seen him’. Although three Vet. Lat. MSS have et
vidētis eum ‘and you see him’, this appears to be more of an interpretative rendering to
the skeptical Goths who may not be convinced that they have already seen God.
To conclude this section, tense and mood mismatches with the Greek version can
occur for a variety of reasons. Some have to do with properties of Gothic syntax and
semantics, some with clarificatory alterations, some with interpretive theological
points, and some with textual variants.
35 The reading gadigis is correct (see Snædal 2013a: i. p. xvii, ii. 141), despite attempts to defend †gadikis
(see Wagner 1988).
CH APTER 6
P-Words
6.1 P-words
P-words encompass prepositions, particles, and prefixes. The theoretical warrant for
combining them is that crosslinguistically particles and prepositions tend, respectively,
to be intransitive and transitive members of the same class. Since both can be prefixes
in most early Indo-European languages, P-words form a natural class.1
Adpositions are either a functional or a hybrid category, the latter in Germanic
where prepositions are semantically richer and far more numerous than other func-
tional categories. Adpositions generally constitute a small closed class, some lan-
guages having fewer than five. They are functional in their link to case assignment and
linearization, and the ‘contentless’ ones are just case markers (Miller 2012: ii. 21, w. lit).
The main crosslinguistic generalizations about adpositions are laid out in (1).
(1) Typical characteristics of adpositions (Svenonius 2004)
a) Express binary relations between entities (and events)
b) Form a syntactic constituent with a DP complement
c) C[category]-select properties of the complement (e.g. in selects a DP; out
selects a PP with of )
d) S[semantic]-select properties of the complement (e.g. in requires a container,
on a surface, between a complement with ‘sides’; etc.)
e) Project XPs which function as predicate or sentential adjuncts
f) Do not combine with tense or aspect morphology.
Several typologies of particles have appeared in the vast literature. That in (2) can
serve to introduce the relevant terminology.
(2) Brief particle typology (Miller 2014b: ch. 4, w. lit)
a) Spatial (walk through)
b) Aspectual
1) Transitivizing (think the problem through)
2) Telic (drink up)
1 Important work on local P-words in Vedic by Hettrich, Casaretto, and others continues to appear in
a series of articles: http://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/04080400/Projekt_Publikationen.pdf.
6.2 Prepositions
The cases associated with each preposition (P) are determined partly lexically
(semantically or idiosyncratically) and partly syntactically. Because of the dative-
instrumental-ablative-locative syncretism, most Ps in Gothic are accompanied
by the dative (Köhler 1864: 44–8; Winkler 1896: 154–313), a lesser number by
the accusative, and only a few by the genitive (Grimm 1837: 765–800; Delbrück
1907: 201f.).
Table 6.1 contains a list of the main Ps in Gothic.2
6.3 af
Af occurs exclusively with the dative case and denotes various ramifications of origin
or source, 71x in the Gospels alone (Thomason 2006: 72), where it translates Gk. apó
‘from’ 54x, ek ‘out of ’ 5x, and pará ‘(from) beside’ 1x (Eckhoff et al. 2013: 325).
Af is preferred with verbs of motion and indicates that the subject is moving away
from the object (Zych 1981: 38). It is also frequent in contexts where ablativity is
already indicated, especially on the verb (M. Krause 1995: 7). Consider the occurrence
of af with at-steig ‘climb down’ in (3) and with af-laiþ ‘went off ’ in (4).
(3) nasei þuk silban jah atsteig af þamma galgin (Mk 15:30)
‘save yourself and climb down off/from that cross’
2 Additional examples and discussion can be found in Van der Meer (1930), Zych (1981), Klein
(1992b), M. Krause (1995), and Thomason (2006, 2008). Winkler (1896: 154–313), Klein (1992b), and
Thomason (2006: 154–211) present a rich comparison of the Gothic PPs with their Greek counterparts.
234 P-Words
P Case Meanings
Example (4) is typical in that a person as complement of af generally does not take an
active part in the event (Van der Meer 1930: 12). This differs from fram ‘(away) from’,
for which the person is actively engaged in the action (Zych 1981: 38ff.).
Af is used of general separation (Zych 1981: 41f.):
(5) ga-lausjada af þamma witoda abins (Rom 7:2A)
prfx-loose-3sg.pass from det:dat.sg law.dat.sg husband.gen.sg
‘she is freed from the law of the husband’
Figurative separation occurs in expressions like ‘save X from Y’, e.g. ganasjiþ managein
| seina af frawaurhtim ize (Bl 1r.26–1v.1) ‘he will save his people from their sins’ (§9.6).
Af + gen has been supposed for Lazarus af Beþanias (Jn 11:1) ‘Lazarus of Bethany’
and Iosef af Areimaþaias (Mk 15:43) ‘Joseph of Arimath(a)ea’.3
Af also occurs in a temporal sense ‘from, since’, though rarely in the Gospels, e.g.
af anastodeinai gaskaftais (Mk 10:6) ‘since the beginning of creation’; cf. fram: fram
anastodeinai gaskaftais (Mk 13:19) ‘from the beginning of creation’. Generally af desig-
nates movement from a point in time, while fram “expresses a point in time at which
something begins and then continues into the present” (Zych 1981: 59f.).
It is sometimes stated that af expresses location in expressions like af taihswon
þeinai (Mk 10:37) ‘at your right’ (Thomason 2006: 72; 2008: 292f.), but this is a matter
of perspective that mirrors the Greek variation: af taihswon (8x) renders Gk. ek(s)
‘from’ and locatival in taihswon (Rom 8:34A, Eph 1:20A/B) copies Gk. en ‘in’. The
former occurs only in Mark and Luke, the latter never in the Gospels. That they were
similar pragmatically is suggested by gasat af taihswon gudis (Mk 16:19S) ‘sat at the right
hand of God’ beside ist in taihswon gudis (Rom 8:34A) ‘is at the right hand of God’.
6.4 afar
Afar ‘after’ + acc (35x, 1 dupl) is exclusively temporal, e.g. afar dagans þrins (Lk 2:46)
‘after three days’, afar nahtamat (1Cor 11:25A) ‘after supper’ (Huth 1903: 19–22).
3 M. Krause (1995: 11) claims that these are true genitives because dat and acc forms are attested, but
only for Beþania. Snædal (2013a: ii. 49, 71) classifies Areimaþaias and Beþanias as dat sg, as Gothic syn-
tax requires. The tradition (e.g. GrGS 237; Börner 1859: 15; Ohrloff 1876: 21f.; Elis 1903: 22f.; Gaebeler 1911:
71; Van der Meer 1930: 11; Zych 1981: 37f.; Lühr 1985: 150) realized that Greek genitive forms were lifted
over. For Krause, these are Gothic genitives in a rare construction in which the noun is phrasally expanded.
But in the only other occurrence of af, there is no noun expansion: qam manna gabigs af Areimaþaias
(Mt 27:57) ‘there came a rich man from Arimath(a)ea’. Areimaþaias is the only form attested to that place
name, but Beþania has acc Beþanian (Mk 11:11) and dat Beþaniïn (Mk 8:22, 11:12) ~ Biþaniïn (Mk 11:1)
~ Beþanijin (Lk 19:29, Jn 12:1). It is thus an -n- stem (Börner 1859: 13; Elis 1903: 23; Schulze 1907b: 167;
GGS 186) like atta ‘father’ (dat attin, acc attan), the dative forms being secondary since the other case
forms are Greek, as shown by Beþanias (the genitive of atta is attins, not **attas). Galeilaia* ‘Galilee’ has
gen Galeilaias (9x), dat Galeilaia (12x), acc Galeilaian (6x), following the Greek paradigm (Börner 1859:
15; Snædal 2018: 216). Gaebeler (1911: 71) discusses ten place names with Greek inflection in Gothic. For
these and other names, see Börner (1859: 15ff.), Schulze (1907b), and Lühr (1985).
236 P-Words
For ‘go after’ in the sense of ‘look for’, cf. gaggiþ afar þamma fralusanin (Lk 15:4) ‘go
after the lost one [sheep]’ (Huth 1903: 26).
In (8), afar designates imitation, not ‘in the manner of ’ (pace Thomason 2006: 68).
(8) haihaitun ina afar namin attins is Zakarian (Lk 1:59)
call.3pl.pret he.acc after name.dat father.gen his Zachariah.acc
‘they called him Zachariah after the name of his father’
The Greek versions have epí ‘on’ and the Latin in ‘in, on’ or super ‘over, on’ (VL 1976:
49), the implication being ‘on the basis of, on account of ’. Given the well known ‘after
this therefore on account of this’, the Gothic choice of afar makes good sense.
6.5 ana
Ana ‘on’ is accompanied by the dative 73x in the Gospels for location (generally
on a surface), as in (11), and the accusative 86x for motion ‘onto’ (Thomason
2006: 61), as in (12). All of the examples known at the time are collected in
Gould (1916).
(11) þoei ana airþai sind (Col 3:2A/B)
‘(those things) which are on earth’ (§9.34)
6.5–6 ana, and 237
Exceptions occur in both directions: dat for direction 11x, acc for location 5x in the
Gospels (Thomason 2006: 61; cf. Van der Meer 1930: 55). For instance, with forms of
(ga)satjan ‘set, put’ a lamp is put ‘onto a lampstand’ (ana lukarnastaþan Mk 4:21) or
‘on a lampstand’ (ana lukarnastaþin Mt 5:15, Lk 8:16).4
Figurative location occurs in ana managein þeinai | [þi]uþeins þeina (Bl 1v.19f.) ‘on
your people [is] your blessing’.
Translation-prompted are ana auþidai ‘in the desert, wilderness’ and in auþidai ‘id.’
(Thomason 2008: 288f.), but note ana Gutþiudai (Cal 1.1, 1.7) ‘in Gothia’.
Seven times in the Gospels ana + dat signals a topic, e.g. usfilmans waurþun ana
þizai laiseinai is (Mk 1:22) ‘they became amazed at his teaching’ (Thomason 2006: 61).
Ana + acc is used twice in the Gospels of the time during which an event occurs,
e.g. sibun sinþam ana dag (Lk 17:4) ‘seven times a day’. Several other minor functions
occur as well (Thomason 2006: 61).
6.6 and
And + acc (35x, 1 dupl) is primarily spatial, implying direction to and through (path)
but over an entire area. It does not occur in John.
Semantically, and differs from ana ‘on, onto’ and þairh ‘through’ in imparting a
holistic interpretation, analogous to ‘covering’ (M. Krause 1995: 5; cf. Naber 1879: 3):
(13) jah us-iddja meriþa so and alla jaina airþa (Mk 9:26)
and out-went news D.nom.sg.f [cover] all that land
‘and that news went abroad throughout that entire land’
In support of this interpretation, Thomason (2006: 78; 2008: 289) notes that and is
accompanied by a form of alls ‘all, entire’ in 17 of its occurrences.
4 Ana is supposedly an adverb in (akr) du usfilhan ana gastim (Mt 27:7), for Gk. (agròn) eis taph n toĩs
ksénois ‘(a field) for burial for foreigners’ (e.g. Gould 1916: 28; Sturtevant 1930: 101f.; Snædal). Usfilhan takes
acc objects at Lk 9:59, 60. Ana can be ‘in relation to (foreigners)’ (Durante 1974) or a P with null object ‘on
(it)’ (the land) (cf. Melazzo 2004: 374). Editors wrongly supplied ina in galagidedun ana wastjos (Mk 11:7)
‘cast their garments on (him)’ (Høst 1968: 133f.); cf. atlagjands ana handuns seinos (Mk 8:23) ‘laying his
hands on (him)’ (Høst 1968: 133f.). For more Ps with null object, see Ryder (1951), Harbert (1978: 220).
238 P-Words
Another example is merjan and baurgs ize (Mt 11:1) ‘to preach throughout their
cities’. Most English translations have ‘in’ but and implies more complete coverage.
For and denoting a path, cf. (15) (Naber 1879: 3).
(15) unte is and þata munaida þairh-gaggan (Lk 19:4)
for he along D.acc.sg.n intend.3sg.pret through-go.inf
‘for he (Jesus) was about to pass along that (way)’
Rarely, and seems to designate a given period of time, e.g. and dulþ þan arj[[an]]oh
(Mt 27:15) for Gk. katà dè heort n ‘at/during each feast’. The usual semantics of and
suggests that the meaning should be ‘throughout (the duration of) the feast’; cf. most
Vet. Lat. MSS per diem autem sollemnem ‘through(out) the festive day’ (VL 1972:
203). Thomason (2006: 184) notes that and is not a common rendering of Gk. katá,
which in most passages has a distributive meaning ‘(at) every’. For instance, kath’
hēmérān ‘every day’ is rendered by the dative alone daga ammeh (Mk 14:49). The
choice of and with dulþ reflects a different meaning of Gk. katá, correctly rendered
by per in Latin.
6.7 at
At + acc occurs only four times (2 dupl):5 at dulþ paska (Lk 2:41) ‘at the feast of
Passover’, at mel (Mk 12:2, Gal 6:9A/B) ‘at the season, at the (right) time, in (due) time’,
at maurgin þan waurþanana (Mt 27:1/27:1C) ‘when it became morning; early in the
morning’ (cf. Beer 1904: 14; Gould 1916: 21, 22). The last example renders a Greek gen
abs (Durante 1969: 173f.), and Metlen (1938: 642) takes it as an acc abs with temporal
adverb (cf. GrGS 241).6
Apart from the temporal expressions, at occurs exclusively with the dative regard-
less of whether motion ‘to’ (16) or location ‘near, at, by’ (17) is intended (Gould
1916: 16f.).
(16) (Neikaudaimau) . . . qi|mandin at imma in | naht (Sk 8.3.18ff.)
‘(with Nicodemus) coming to him in (during) the night’
5 This is contingent on assumptions. For instance, Iesu in qam at Iesu (Mk 10:50) ‘he came up to Jesus’
is classified as accusative by Thomason (2006: 58) but as dative by Snædal. Curiously, both agree that at
+ acc occurs 4x. Thomason wrongly excludes the Matthew passage. The fact that at + acc is otherwise
used only in temporal expressions suggests that qam at Iesu involves a dative.
6 There is a curious use of at in ni im þis leikis, nih at þamma leika; nist us þamma leika (1Cor 12:15A,
12:16A . . . ni . . . ). The meaning seems to be ‘I am not of the body, nor right by the body; is it not (a part) of
the body?’. The Greek text has . . . ou parà toũto ouk éstin ek toũ s matos ‘not because of this is it not (a part)
of the body?’; cf. the Latin interpretation: num ideō nōn est dē corpore ‘is it therefore not of the body?’. The
Gothic translator evidently took ou parà toũto to mean ‘not next to this’, and supplied leika under the
assumption that Gk. sõma ‘body’ was omitted. In short, despite attempts to explain at in this passage as
locational with a body or body parts (e.g. Gould 1916: 17), it is a mistranslation of Gk. pará.
6.7 at 239
A fifth of all instances of at mark participial phrases as absolutes (Gould 1916: 22;
see §§9.14f.), always in Matthew and Skeireins (GrGS 241), indicating attendant cir-
cumstance or time, as in (18–20) (cf. Dewey & Syed 2009). Greek absolutes never have
a P (Werth 1965: 89f.).
(18) at jainaim qiþan|dam (Sk 8.4.1f.)
‘them saying’, ‘when they said’
As an extension of the meaning ‘at the side of, at the hands of ’, at can mean ‘from’,
especially as an indirect or intermediary source with verbs of hearing and learning
(GrGS 237; Gould 1916: 15–20). This use supposedly occurs 9x in the Gospels
(Thomason 2006: 59), but some have the more literal meaning, e.g. (22).
(22) all þatei hausida at attin meinamma (Jn 15:15)
‘all that I heard directly from my father’ (i.e. at the side of my father)
In summary, at expresses “close physical proximity between the subject and the
object” (Zych 1981: 53; cf. Borrmann 1892: 9), hence the alleged comitative sense of
‘with’ (4x in the Gospels: Thomason 2006: 59). See (23) and (24).
(23) und ƕa at izwis sijau (Mk 9:19)
up.to what with you.dat.pl be.1sg.opt
‘how long am I to be with you?’
These of course admit the literal interpretation ‘in close proximity to you’, ‘at
his side’.
240 P-Words
6.8 bi
Bi is frequent with the accusative and the dative, and has several different functions.
With the accusative, it primarily denotes surrounding or a location around some entity:
(25) setun bi ina managei (Mk 3:32)
sit.3pl.pret around he.acc crowd.nom.sg
‘a crowd was sitting around him’
The temporal sense is approximative, e.g. bi eila niundon (Mt 27:46) ‘around the
ninth hour’ (i.e. ‘about three p.m.’), but not with the dat: bi spedistin (Mk 16:14S) ‘later’.
For physical clasping around (M. Krause 1995: 10) and abstract ‘about’ see (26–27).
(26) is ufta eisarnam bi fotuns gabuganaim . . . gabundans was
he often iron.dat.pl about feet.acc curved.dat.pl.n bound was
‘he was often bound about the feet with curved irons (i.e. chains)’ (Mk 5:4)
(27) þamma stautandin þuk bi kinnu (Lk 6:29)
D.dat.sg.m hitting.dat.sg.m you.acc.sg about cheek.acc.sg
‘to him hitting you on [“about”] the cheek’
The dative in (28) identifies the location, the area of contact (Thomason 2006: 65).
(28) fairgraip bi handau þata barn (Mk 5:41)
take.3sg.pret by hand.dat.sg D.acc.sg.n child.acc.sg.n
‘took the child by the hand’7
7 This construction alternates with accusative of ‘hand’: fairgreipands handu izos (Lk 8:54) ‘taking her
hand’; cf. undgreipands handu izos (Mk 1:31) ‘id.’, fairgreipands handu þis blindis (Mk 8:32) ‘taking the
hand of the blind man’.
6.8 bi 241
In (32), the dative occurs with a more literal sense of physical contact, rendering a
Greek P-less dative (§11.4; Klein 1992b: 13).
The dative with bi can be used in a similar meaning, as ni stojaiþ bi siunai (Jn 7:24)
‘you should not judge by (on the basis of, according to) appearance’.
The dative is most frequent with bi denoting means, intermediary, and especially
the manner ‘according to’ (30x in the Gospels by the count in Thomason 2006: 66),
e.g. bi witoda fraujins (Lk 2:39) ‘according to the law of the Lord’, bi ragina gudis
(Col 1:25A/B) ‘according to God’s stewardship’, bi þamma gamelidin (Bl 2r.21) ‘accord-
ing to the written (scripture)’, bi þamma qiþan|in (Bl 2r.19f.) ‘according to the spoken
(word)’.
6.9 du
Prepositional du ‘to, for’ occurs with the dative in all contexts except (uninflected)
infinitives. The verbal constructions with and without du are discussed in Winkler
(1896: 275–313). Following are some of the literal and figurative uses.8
The most fundamental meaning is direction, specifically allative; cf. (37).
(37) jabai nu bairais libr9 þein du hunslastada (Mt 5:23)
if now bring.2sg.opt offering your to altar.dat.sg
‘if you be bringing your offering to the altar’
Thomason (2006: 71) counts 146 examples of this type in the Gospels, and notes that
the direction can be modified to the sense of ‘against’, as in (38).
(38) jabai . . . du diuzam waih (1Cor 15:32A)
if to/against animal.dat.pl fight.1sg.pret
‘if I fought (with) wild beasts’
With periods of time, du indicates duration (Thomason 2006: 70; Rousseau 2012:
125), as in du | aiwa (Bl 1r.6f.) ‘for ever’ and (39).
(39) þan galuknoda himins du jeram þrim jah menoþs
when close.3sg.pret heaven for years.dat 3.dat and months
saihs (Lk 4:25)
six
‘when heaven closed up for (the duration of) three years and six months’
8 Gabelentz & Löbe (1848: 652) cite many conjectures on þatei du frawaurhtis mans galaiþ [[in gard]]
ussaljan (Lk 19:7) ‘that he went to take lodging with a sinful man’. Du may take gen here (cf. Bernhardt 1882:
14), but is listed by Snædal as P + dat, although no dative is present. If the gen is dependent on gard, i.e.
‘at the house of a sinful man’, du may be a pleonastic (and ungrammatical) gloss of Gk. pará (Vet. Lat.
apud) ‘chez’. Another conjecture is a displaced purpose marker with ussaljan, but the separation distance
is otherwise shorter and absent from the Gospels (§1.8).
9 Libr is ‘an offering left at a certain place for a deity to pick up’, formerly printed as †aibr, a scribal error
due to the similarity of l and a (Snædal 2015c).
6.9 du 243
Galaubjan ‘believe’ takes acc of the entity or the person (§4.43), but for ‘believe
in’ the object can be dat (§4.43) or du (Mk 9:42; Jn 17x) (Winkler 1896: 306ff.);
cf. (40).
(40) þana galaubjandan du mis ni þaurseiþ (Jn 6:35)
‘he.acc.sg believing.acc.sg.m to I.dat.sg neg thirst.3sg
‘him believing (i.e. he who believes) in me will not thirst’
Wenjan* ‘hope’ also takes du in the sense of ‘(place) hope in’, e.g. Moses, du þammei
jūs weneiþ (Jn 5:45) ‘Moses, in whom you place your hope’, wenjandans du þus
(Bl 1v.21) ‘hoping in you’.
Similarly, verbs of speaking can take dative (§4.43) or du of the addressee, as in
qaþ du jainaim | þrim magum (Bl 2v.23f.) ‘said to those three boys’. In the corpus of
Lk 1:1 to 7:9, du ‘to’ + dat occurs with qiþan ‘say’ or rodjan ‘speak’ 30 times, all trans-
lating Gk. prós + acc, which occurs 46 times in that corpus, 37 of which are trans-
lated by du (Klein 1992b: 24–7). In the present passage du translates a simple Greek
dative, as in 22 instances in Klein’s mini corpus. On the other hand, there are
instances of a simple dative addressee after qiþan, rodjan. The data in Winkler (1896:
297–306) suggest that for qiþan an addressee with du was the norm for Scribe 2
(§1.5) with over a hundred examples each in Mark and especially Luke (with the
highest number of prós ‘to’ in Greek). Matthew has the least, and John an intermedi-
ate number.
Du accompanies what Thomason calls the ‘recipient’ 167x in Luke and 110x in Mark,
but only 29x in John and 6x in Matthew (Thomason 2006: 89).
Du marks the resulting goal state of a change with verbs of making and becoming,
rarely also being:
(41) so siukei nist du dauþau (Jn 11:4) ‘this sickness is not to (result in) death’
(42) jūs ina gatawideduþ du filegrja þiube (Lk 19:46)
you.nom.pl he.acc.sg make.2pl.pret to cave.dat thief.gen.pl
‘you made it (my house) into a den of thieves’
dative of reference, e.g. du weitwodiþai im (Mt 8:4, Mk 1:44, 6:11, Lk 5:14) ‘for/as a
testimony to them’, i.e. ‘for the purpose of evidence and witness to convince them’.
Note also (45).
(45) þai–ei wesun mis du gaþrafsteinai (Col 4:11A/B)
nom.pl.m–rel be.3pl.pret I.dat to comfort.dat.sg
‘who were (for the purpose of) a comfort (with reference) to me’
Other examples are þroþei þuk silban du gagudein (1Tim 4:7A/B) ‘train your-
self for godliness’, i.e. ‘train yourself to be godly’; liuhaþ du andhuleinai þiu-
dom (Lk 2:32) [a light for revelation to the Gentiles] ‘a light to illuminate the
Gentiles’.
The purposive value in (48) borders on predestination:
(48) sa ligiþ du drusa jah usstassai managaize (Lk 2:34)
D.nom.sg.m lie.3sg for fall.dat and rise.dat many.gen.pl.m
‘he is situated for the fall and rise of many’
(i.e. ‘he is destined to cause the fall and the rise of many’)
The actual function of the woman as a wife (as opposed to her intended purpose) is
signaled by du in (49).
(49) þai auk sibun aihtedun þo du qenai
D.nom.pl.m for seven own.3pl.pret D.acc.sg.f to wife.dat
‘for the seven had her to/as wife’ (i.e. ‘were married to her’) (Mk 12:23, Lk 20:33)
From bota* (3x) ‘advantage, benefit’, as in o mis boto (1Cor 15:32A) ‘what benefit
(is there) to me?’ (i.e. ‘what have I gained?’), Gothic has an idiom that is the precise
equivalent of Eng. to boot (OE tō bōte ‘to the good, in addition’): Xristus izwis nist
du botai (Gal 5:2B) ‘Christ will profit you nothing’, i.e. ‘will be of no advantage
to you’.
6.10–11 faur, faura 245
6.10 faur
Faur + acc ‘in front, before, for’ has lexically specified case.10 There is no distinction
between motion and location. All of the uses are documented in Naber (1879: 16ff.).
The main function is temporal and spatial priority:
(50) faur hanins hruk þrim sinþam afaikis mik (Mt 26:75)
‘before the rooster’s crowing, three times you (will) deny me’
Greek has exẽlthen éxō eis tò proaúlion ‘he went out into the forecourt’. The Latin ver-
sions are divided between ante ātrium ‘before the atrium’ and in exteriōrem ātrī locum
‘into the outer area of the atrium’ (VL 1970: 145).
Faur can have a benefactive function, as in (52) and (53).
(52) Unte saei nist wiþra izwis, faur izwis ist (Lk 9:50)
‘because he who is not against you is for you’ (cf. Mk 9:40; Odefey 1908: 58)
Faur can also mean ‘near, next to, by the side of ’, as in (55).
(55) gadraus faur wig (Mk 4:4)
‘fell by/along the road’ (= Gk. parà t n hodón)
6.11 faura
Faura + dat ‘in front, ahead of, before’ has lexically specified case. There is no distinc-
tion between motion and location. Although quite distinct (Marcq 1969: 209ff.), faura
overlaps with faur.
10 Thomason (2006: 66f.) cites some alleged datives with faur to designate location ‘near’ or beneficiary,
but all of the examples are generally classified as accusative (e.g. in Snædal).
246 P-Words
Two of the main functions are spatial or temporal priority and benefactive:
(56) ik insandja aggilu meinana faura þus,
saei gamanweiþ wig þeinana faura þus (Mt 11:10)
‘I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
Who will prepare your way before/for you’
Faura is causal in faura fahedai (Jn 16:21) ‘for (the) joy’; cf. cod. Brix. prae gaudiō
‘for joy’, other Latin versions propter gaudium ‘because of joy’ (Marold 1882: 30). For
the causal function, cf. (59) and (60).
(59) ni mahtedun andqiþan imma faura managein (Lk 8:19)
neg can.3pl.pret approach.inf he.dat for crowd.dat.sg
‘they could not get near him for (i.e. because of) the crowd’
As an extension of causality, with verbs of warning, guarding, and the like, faura
states the risk to be avoided:
(61) atsaiƕiþ sweþauh faura liugna-praufetum (Mt 7:15)
beware.2pl.impv nevertheless for lie-prophet.dat.pl
‘but watch out for false prophets’
6.12 fram
The dative complement of fram indicates source and can contrast with af, which
marks origin (Rousseau 2012: 127) or general separation (Zych 1981: 48ff.). Fram
11 English translations typically have ‘beside’, ‘next to’, or ‘by’, like Gk. pará and most of the Latin ver-
sions with secus, iūxtā, apud, or ad, but cod. Palatinus has ante ‘before, in front of ’ (VL 1976: 111).
6.12 fram 247
renders Gk. ek ‘out of ’ 5x, apó ‘from’ 12x, and pará ‘(from) beside’ 14x (Eckhoff et al.
2013: 325).
(63) ga-lisiþ þans ga-walidans seinans
prfx-select.3sg D.acc.pl.m prfx-chosen.acc.pl.m poss.refl:acc.pl.m
af fidwor windam fram andjam airþos (Mk 13:27)
from four wind.dat.pl from end.dat.pl earth.gen.sg
‘he will assemble his chosen ones
from the four winds from the ends of the earth’
Inasmuch as this is a denial that the branch is the originator of the fruit, it makes sense
that the P is af rather than fram.
Fram as the originator occurs idiomatically in the phrase fram mis silbin (Jn 7:17,
8:42) [from (me) myself] ‘of my own initiative/authority’, fram sis silbin (Jn 7:18,
1Cor 16:2A/B) [from himself] ‘of his own initiative/authority’. See also us mis
silbin ‘id.’.
In temporal expressions fram indicates the point of departure, e.g. fram frumistin
(Lk 1:2) [from first] ‘from the very beginning’ (Sturtevant 1953: 60), fram þamma daga
ei hausidedum (Col 1:9B) ‘since the day when we heard (it)’.
With verbs of hearing, fram as the source can contrast with at as an intermediary
(Zych 1981: 52f.), e.g. þoei hausida fram guda (Jn 8:40) ‘which (truth) I heard from
God’ (as the ultimate source), hauseiþ fram imma (Jn 7:51) ‘hears from him’,
beside þoei hausides at mis (2Tim 2:2B) ‘(the things) which you heard from me’
(as intermediary), þoei at mis hausides (2Tim 1:13A/B) ‘(words) that you heard from
me’. But at was in competition with fram: þatei hausida at imma (Jn 8:26) ‘what I
heard from him’, all þatei hausida at attin meinamma (Jn 15:15) ‘all that I heard from
my father’. Since all of these translate Gk. pará ‘from (the side of), issuing from’ (Lat. ā/ab
‘(away) from’), the Gothic distinction was apparently not translation-motivated,
and reflects the tension between translation fidelity (pará → at as a default) and
theological precision.
This is supported by the fact that fram can also designate the person about whom
something is learned, e.g. hausjandans fram imma bokarjos (Mk 3:21) ‘the scribes
hearing about him’. Compare also meriþa fram imma (Lk 4:37) ‘the rumor about/of
him’ (Zych 1981: 53f.). Thomason (2006: 73f.) subsumes this function under ‘topic’.
Agentive fram occurs primarily with human agents as an extension from the initiator
(cf. Zych 1981: 52), and is the most frequent Gothic expression of the agent ‘by’-phrase
248 P-Words
(Dolcetti Corazza 1982: 92; Klein 1992b: 7, 12, 73). It differs from nonaffective
experiencers or theme subjects, which are put in the dative (cf. Harbert 1978: 90ff.,
2007: 239):
(65) ei gaumjaindau mannam (Mt 6:5)
that see.3pl.opt.pass man.dat.pl
‘that they may be seen by men’ / ‘that they may be visible to men’ (§4.43)
Natural forces can be treated as quasi-agentive causes, prompting fram, e.g. raus
fram winda wagid (Lk 7:24; Mt 11:7 . . . wagidata) ‘a reed swayed by the wind’. In the
agent/force function Thomason (2006: 74) counts 17 examples in Luke, 6 in Mark, 5 in
Matthew, and 1 in John.
With cities, placenames, and other geographical locations, af is more frequent than
fram ‘from’ or us ‘out of, from’, even when separation is from the place of origin
(Van der Meer 1930: 12, 20; Zych 1981: 49f.).
6.13 in
‘In’ was one of the most frequent Ps in Indo-European, having a variety of functions
(Thomason 2011). The main function involved location and direction. Since the
accusative had allative functions in all of the older IE languages, it is not surprising to
find it used with the Gothic P in in the directional sense of ‘into’, as in (67).
(67) giutand wein juggata in balgins niujans
pour.3pl wine.acc.sg young.acc.sg in wineskin.acc.pl new.acc.pl
‘they pour young (i.e. new) wine into new wineskins’ (Mt 9:17)
This use is very frequent: Mt 27x, Mk 78x, Lk 62x, Jn 37x. By contrast, in + dat is most
frequent for location: Mt 45x, Mk 59x, Lk 125x, Jn 75x (Thomason 2006: 57); cf. (68).
(68) naht jah dag in diupiþai was mareins (2Cor 11:25B)
night and day in deep.dat.sg was sea.gen.sg
‘a night and a day I was on the deep of the sea’
Exceptions involving location in time with acc are rare: in jainans dagans . . . sauil
riqizeiþ (Mk 13:24) ‘in those days the sun will be(come) dark’, perhaps conceptual-
ized as duration ‘over/during those days the sun will be dark’ (GrGS 241). This is
consistent with the idea that riqizjan* should be stative (Sturtevant 1938: 463f.).
Also possible is a target state: ‘the sun will become dark (and remain that way) over
those days’.
6.13–14 in, miþ 249
For location in space, in + acc occurs only 6x in the Gospels (Thomason 2006: 57).
More frequent is the use of the dative in expressions involving motion or direction:
Mt 10x, Mk 16x, Lk 17x, Jn 6x (Thomason 2006: 57), e.g.
(69) qemun in garda Seimonis (Mk 1:29)
come.3pl.pret in house.dat.sg Simon.gen.sg
‘they came into Simon’s house’
Location ‘among’ is expressed by in, e.g. sokidedun ina in ganiþjam jah in kunþam
(Lk 2:44) ‘they sought him among the relatives and acquaintances’ (Thomason 2008:
290).
In the meaning ‘because of ’, in is generally accompanied by the genitive case:
(70) gaurs in daubiþos hairtins ize (Mk 3:5)
‘sorrowful because of the hardness of their heart’
In + gen expresses cause or reason 34x in the Gospels, while in + dat occurs 18x in
this use (Thomason 2006: 57). The frequent in-uh þis ‘and on account of this, and for
this reason’ also occurs at Bl 1r.7, 23, 2r.13, 2v.21, 25.
In + gen translates Gk. n ‘by’ in oaths 1x: in izwaraizos oftuljos (1Cor 15:31A) [by your
pride] ‘by my pride in you’ = Gk. n t n hūmetérān kaúkhēsin (Kapteijn 1911: 337).
In + acc metaphorically expresses manner 2x in the Gospels: gagg in gawairþi
(Mk 5:34, Lk 7:50) ‘go in peace’ (Thomason 2006: 56f.). In + dat is more common in
this function: 41x in the Gospels (ibid.).
The expression in namin meinamma (11x) ‘in my name’ ~ ana namin meinamma
(Mk 9:37, Lk 9:48) ‘id.’ is generally interpreted ‘on my behalf ’. Likewise in namin þein-
amma (3x) ~ in þeinamma namin (Mk 9:38) ~ ana þeinamma namin (Lk 9:49) ‘in
your name; for your benefit’. But the formula also occurs without a preposition, e.g.
þeinamma namin (3x in Mt 7:22). The bare dative in Gk. tõi sõi onómati can be instru-
mental, and is so rendered in Lith. tavo vardu ‘by (invoking) your name; with the help
of your name’ (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.). One of the verbs in Mt 7:22 is praufetidedum ‘we
prophesied’, classified by Winkler (1896: 106) as taking an instrumental dative.
6.14 miþ
Miþ + dat ‘with’ is the regular expression of the comitative relation. It occurs nearly
120x in the Gospels (Thomason 2006: 76; see also §6.43); cf. (71).
(71) miþ twaim tigum þūsundjo (Lk 14:31)
‘with twenty (of) thousands (i.e. troops)’
Miþ also expresses manner (72), but not instrument (Van der Meer 1930: 113).
(72) miþ | hatiza andhofun | wiþra ins (Sk 8.2.22ff.)
‘with hostility (i.e. angrily) they replied to them’
250 P-Words
Another example is miþ rimisa (2Thess 3:12) ‘with quiet demeanor’. In expressions
with a modifier, miþ reinforces the dative alone, e.g. miþ stibnai mikilai (Lk 17:15)
beside stibnai mikilai (Mt 27:46, 50, Mk 1:26, 5:7, 15:34, Lk 1:42, 8:27, 19:37, Jn 11:43)
‘with/in a loud voice’, etc. Many examples in Piper (1874: 30).
Miþ supposedly behaves like Eng. amid ‘in/through the midst of ’, as in miþ tweihnaim
markom Daikapaulaios (Mk 7:31) ‘between the two coasts of the Decapolis’ (Thomason
2006: 76), but the literal meaning remains ‘with’ (§3.28). Compare the use of miþ in
the reciprocal syntagma miþ sis misso (7x) ‘with one another’, i.e. ‘among themselves’.
Also for the sense of ‘among’, cf. (73).
(73) þatei ist gaskeiriþ miþ unsis g(u)þ (Bl 2v.9)
‘which is clarified among us (as) God’
6.15 þairh
Þairh + acc ‘through’ designates a path from one end to the other (Naber 1879: 5;
M. Krause 1995: 6; Thomason 2006: 79):
(74) azitizo ist ulbandau þairh þairko neþlos galeiþan
easier.n is camel.dat.sg through hole needle.gen.sg go.inf
(Mk 10:25)
‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle’
One extension of path is instrument or means (Luraghi 2003: 327), as in (75) and
also (76) with the hapax þlahsjan* ‘frighten’.
(75) (gabaurþ.) anþara þairh þwahl* <þwalh> usþulan (Sk 2.2.4)
(birth) second through washing experience.inf
‘the experiencing of a second birth through baptism’ (tr. Berard 1993a: 231)
6.15–16 þairh, uf 251
The intermediary need not be animate; (79) contains a contrast with the dat
of means.
(79) anstai siuþ ganasidai þairh galaubein
grace.dat be.2pl saved.nom.pl.m through belief
‘by (means of) grace you are saved through (Eph 28A ~ B sijuþ)
(the intermediary of your) faith’
6.16 uf
Uf ‘under’ is infrequent and does not occur in John. It is used with the accusative ten
times (1 dupl), four of which involve motion (Thomason 2006: 62), as in (80).
(80) ei uf hrot mein inngaggais (Mt 8:8, Lk 7:6)
‘that you come under my roof ’
Uf occurs with the dative 27x (6 dupl), but location in the strict sense is rare, e.g. uf
himina (Lk 17:24 2x, Col 1:23A/B, Bl 1v.3f.) ‘under heaven’, uf skadau is (Mk 4:32)
‘under its shade/shadow’.
Most of the uses are figurative. Meanings involving subjugation or being subject
to someone or something are frequent, e.g. uf jukuzjai (1Tim 6:1A/B) ‘under the yoke’,
uf raginjam (Gal 4:2A) ‘under guardians’, uf witoda (1Cor 9:20A 3x, Gal 4:4A, 4:5A,
4:21A/B, 5:18A/B) ‘under the law’.
Uf is also used with the dative of an important person to mark some point in
history, e.g. uf Abiaþara gudjin (Mk 2:26) ‘in the time of Abiathar the high priest’,
uf Haileisaiu praufetau (Lk 4:27) ‘in the time of Elisha the prophet’.
252 P-Words
Compare in dagam ‘in the days’: in dagam Heleiins (Lk 4:25) ‘in the days of
Elijah’, in dagam Herodes þiudanis Iudaias (Lk 1:5) ‘in the days of Herod, king
of Judea’.
6.17 ufar
Ufar ‘over’ occurs with the accusative 30x (7 dupl), incl. Bl 1r.11, and with the dative
13x. There is a preference for the dative in expressions of location, like warþ riqis ufar
allai airþai (Mt 27:45) ‘there was darkness over all the earth’, but the accusative can
also be used; cf. atstandands ufar ija (Lk 4:39) ‘standing over her’.
The accusative with ufar rarely indicates direction, as in usstaig ufar allans himinans
(Eph 4:10A) ‘he ascended above all the heavens’.
The accusative can indicate path, as in iddjedun-uh ufar marein (Jn 6:17) ‘and they
went over/across the sea’ (Thomason 2006: 63).
One figurative use of the accusative is pleonasm (‘more than’):
(81) sa–ei frijoþ attan aiþþau aiþein ufar mik
nom.sg.m-rel love.3sg father.acc or mother.acc over me.acc
‘whoever loves his father or mother more than me’ (Mt 10:37)
(82) nasei mik f(rauj)a unte [ni]st saei nasjai ufar þuk f(rauj)a (Bl 1r.11)
save me lord for not.is who save over you lord
‘save me, Lord, for there is no (one) who can save more than you, Lord’
12 MS A has giban to be deleted before þau, and B has bidjan for bidjam.
6.17–18 ufar, und 253
6.18 und
Und with the dative occurs five times, mostly formulaically, in the sense of retribution
‘(in return) for’: augo und augin (Mt 5:38) ‘an eye for an eye’, tunþu und tunþau
(Mt 5:38) ‘a tooth for a tooth’, ubil und ubilamma (1Thess 5:15B, Rom 12:17A) ‘evil for
evil’. One unique example bears a different semantic role: und akra kasjins (Mt 27:10)
‘for (i.e. to buy) the potter’s field’. Since this is in response to a directive from the Lord,
all of the examples involve some sort of exchange.
Otherwise, und occurs with the accusative and means ‘(up) to, until’ some point in
time (or space), e.g. und hina dag (Mt 11:23, 27:8, 2Cor 3:14, 15A/B) ‘to this day’, und andi
(Mk 13:27+ [5x]) ‘to the end’, und hita (Mt 11:12+ [4x]) ‘until now’. Once it is used with a
period of time: und aiw (Lk 1:55) ‘for ever’. For directionality to a terminal location, cf.
und Beþlahaim (Lk 2:15) ‘to Bethlehem’, und auhmisto þis fairgunjis (Lk 4:29) ‘to the
highest (point) of the hill’, iupaþro und dalaþ (Mt 27:51, Mk 15:38) ‘from top to bottom’.
Note fram . . . und ‘from . . . to’: fram saihston þan eilai . . . und eila niundon
(Mt 27:45) ‘from the sixth hour to the ninth’ (3:00 PM), fram andjam airþos und andi
himinis (Mk 13:27) ‘from the ends of the earth to the end of heaven’.
The single use with a personal pronoun object may imply ‘right up to’: qemun und
ina (Lk 4:42) ‘they came (right) up to him’.
Und occurs as a degree marker in the comparative construction und filu mais
(4x, 2 dupl), lit. ‘up to much more’ (cf. Sturtevant 1936: 283f.), i.e. ‘to a much higher
degree, to a far greater extent’. Of the examples in (87), (87a) is literally ‘better up to
much more’.
(87) a) und filu mais batizo ist (Phil 1:23B)
‘(that) is very much better’
b) und filu mais hropida (Lk 18:39)
‘he cried out so much the more’
In (88) the literal meaning is ‘not to a whit’, i.e. ‘not a bit’. Iusiza is a hapax, meaning
‘better’, ‘different’, or the like (cf. GED 209, LHE2 317; see iusiza in App.).
(88) ni und waiht iusiza ist skalka (Gal 4:1A)
neg to thing better.nom.sg.m.wk is slave.dat.sg
‘he is not at all better than/different from a slave’
[Gk. oudèn diaphérei doúlou ‘he differs not at all from a slave’]
254 P-Words
6.19 us
Us ‘from, out of ’ indicates motion away from the interior of a container, or the loca-
tion from which some entity or activity originates (Zych 1981: 62). It translates Gk. ek
‘from, out of ’ 124x out of 180x in the Gospels (Eckhoff et al. 2013: 325). As such it
overlaps with fram and af 5x each (ibid.). For instance, us guda (12x) ‘from God’ enters
into competition with the more frequent fram guda ‘id.’.
For a contrast with af, observe (89).
(89) Lazarus af Beþanias, us haimai Marjins (Jn 11:1)
‘Lazarus of Bethany, from the village of Mary’
[Gk. Lázaros apò Bēthaníās, ek tẽs k mēs Maríās,
Lat. Lazarus ā Bēthaniā, dē castellō Mariae ‘id.’]
Greek, Latin, and Gothic contrast the P ‘of ’ Bethany (the name of the village) with the
P ‘out of ’ the village itself (as a container). Even though the two are appositional, they
were evidently conceptualized differently (cf. Zych 1981: 63f.).
The container can consist of any entity, e.g. us handau meinai (Jn 10:28) ‘out of my
hand’, us handum meinaim (Bl 2v.25) ‘from my hands’, us himina (Jn 6:32+ [26x, 1 dupl,
incl. Bl 2r.10, 12]) ‘out of heaven’, us þamma fair au (13x, all but one in Jn) ‘from/(out)
of this world’, us dauþaim (23x, 3 dupl) ‘from (among) the dead’,13 us Iudaium (Rom
9:24A) ‘from among the Jews’, us þiudom (Rom 9:24A, 2Cor 11:26B, Gal 2:15B, Neh
5:17, Bl 1r.2) ‘from the nations’, us þamma leika (1Cor 12:15A, 12:16A, 2Cor 5:8A/B,
Rom 7:24A, Gal 6:8A/B, Bl 1r.15) ‘from this body’, us staina (Mk 15:46) ‘out of the rock’
(material), us þaurnum (Lk 6:44) ‘from thorns’, (Jn 19:2) ‘(out) of thorns’ (material).
Saving or rescuing someone ‘from’ is expressed by us, but aside from nasei mik us
þizai eilai (Jn 12:27) ‘save me from this hour’, the only examples are:
(90) þuei nauel us swaleikamma midja|sweipainais watin
you.who Noah from such.dat.sg.n flood.gen water
g[a]nasides · þuei Lod us Sau|daumos gawargeinai·
save.2sg.pret you.who Lot from Sodom.gen damnation.dat
g[an]asides þuei Israel | us faraoni . . . ganasides·
save.2sg.pret you.who Israel from pharaoh save.2sg.pret
(Bl 1v.8–11)
‘you who saved Noah from such water of the great flood;
you who saved Lot from the damnation of Sodom;
you who rescued Israel from pharaoh’
13 This formula also occurs in the Crimean graffiti: usstoþ . . . us dauþaim ‘arose from the dead’ (Korobov &
Vinogradov 2016: 146); cf. us dauþaim usstandan (Mk 9:10) ‘to rise from the dead’, usstandand us dauþaim
(Mk 12:25) ‘they (will) rise from the dead’.
6.19–20 us, wiþra 255
In partial competition with the genitive (§§4.24ff.) us signals partitivity 7x (GrGS 214;
Eckhoff et al. 2013: 325), e.g. us izwis (9x, 6 dupl) ‘from (among) you’, partitive ‘of you’,
ganasjau sumans us im (Rom 11:14A) ‘I may save some of them’ (Balg 1891: 234; Van
der Meer 1930: 28; Zych 1981: 69ff.).
For the temporal use, cf. us gabaurþai (Jn 9:1) ‘since birth’, us barniskja (Mk 9:21,
2Tim 3:15A/B) ‘from childhood’, us frumistja (Jn 6:64) ‘from the beginning’, uz-uh
þamma mela (Jn 6:66) ‘and from that time’.
All three ablatival Ps at least partially compete, e.g. af anastodeinai (Mk 10:6) ‘from
the beginning’, fram anastodeinai (Mk 13:19, Lk 1:3, 70, Sk 1.2.23f.) ‘id.’, us anastodeinai
(Sk 1.3.14f.) ‘id.’ (Zych 1981: 83ff.); for the Greek, see Odefey (1908: 70).
With an individual, us translates Gk. ek and means ‘from oneself, on one’s author-
ity’ (Van der Meer 1930: 27; Zych 1981: 66f.).
(91) ik us mis silbin ni rodida (Jn 12:49)
I out.of I.dat.sg self.dat.sg.m neg speak.1sg.pret
‘I have not spoken on my own’
6.20 wiþra
Wiþra + acc occurs 48 times (13 dupl) in several different meanings. It is some-
times opposed to faur (Marcq 1969: 211f.). All of the uses are documented in Naber
(1879: 12ff.). The primary meaning is supposedly ‘to/in the face (of); facing’
(Rousseau 2012: 122ff.), e.g. andwairþi wiþra andwairþi (1Cor 13:12A) ‘face to face’,
then ‘against’: wiþra listins diabulaus (Eph 6:11A/B) ‘against the deceitful schemes of
the devil’. See (92).
(92) qairrei, gahobains, swiknei: wiþra þo swaleika nist witoþ (Gal 5:23A/B)
‘gentleness, self-control, chastity: against such as these there is no law’
With swaran ‘swear’ one makes an oath to someone’s face: aiþis þanei swor wiþra
Abraham <Abrahama> (Lk 1:73) ‘the oath which he swore to (the face of) Abraham’
(cf. Naber 1879: 13; Borrmann 1892: 34). Direct facing is also involved with verbs of
the answering class (93) and other modes of response, as in (94) with the hapax sun-
jon* ‘excuse, vindicate’.
(93) jah andhof Iesus wiþra ina (Lk 4:4)
‘and Jesus replied to him’
256 P-Words
6.22 alja
Alja ‘except’ occurs 18 times (2 dupl), incl. Bl 1v.5, as a conjunction but only 1x as
a P + dat (cf. Kieckers 1960: 273). See (98) which more likely involves a dative of
comparison (§4.34) due to anþar (Sturtevant 1931: 68, w. lit).
(98) jah nist anþar alja imma (Mk 12:32)
‘and there is no other than him’
6.23 bisunjane
is unfortunate that bisunjane is not attested with other objects. The only potential
example is (101), where þans is object of bisai ands, not of bisunjane.14
(101) jah bisai ands bisunjane þans bi sik
and looking.round about.adv those.acc.pl around refl
sitandans (Mk 3:34)
sitting.acc.pl
‘and (he) looking round about at those sitting around him’
6.24 fairra
Fairra ‘far (off), away’ occurs 21x (2 dupl), 13x in Luke alone, never in John. At least a
third are adverbial, and Snædal (2013a: ii. 114) classifies it exclusively as an adverb. Its
primary feature is distality. When fairra designates distancing from a person or object,
further direction specification is unneeded. In (102), galiþun has no directional prefix.
(102) biþe galiþun fairra im in himin þai aggiljus (Lk 2:15)
when went.3pl away they.dat in heaven det angel.nom.pl
‘when the angels went (far) away from them into heaven’
Fairra differs from other Ps in violating adjacency three times (cf. Ryder 1949: 44ff.;
1951: 203ff.; M. Krause 1995: 12). (103) renders Gk. pórrō ap-ékhei ‘keeps far away’
(Kind 1901: 30).
(103) iþ hairto ize fairra habaiþ sik mis (Mk 7:6)
but heart their far has/keeps refl me.dat
‘but their heart is (lit. keeps itself) far from me’
The question arises whether mis is a complement of fairra or just a referential dative
(‘far away with respect to me’). Greek differs with a PP ap’ emoũ ‘from me’. If fairra
does not license a complement, then its P status in (102) and elsewhere is in question.
However, since it translates Gk. apó ‘from’ 12x in the Gospels, it may be both an adverb
(sometimes with referential dative) and a P + dat (Zych 1981: 86–90; Eckhoff et al.
2013: 325, 327f.), possibly by reanalysis of adjacent referential datives.
14 The Greek text reads periblepsámenos kúklōi toùs perì autòn kathēménous ‘looking around in a circle
at those sitting around him’, in which kúklōi ‘in a circle’ is adverbial to peri-blepsámenos ‘having looked
around’ with the accusative object toús ‘the (ones), those’ (cf. §9.5). For bi-sai an* ‘look around (at)’ as a
transitive verb with accusative objects, cf. bi-sai ands alla (Mk 11:11) ‘looking around at all things’.
6.24–7 fairra, hindar, inu(h), neƕa, neƕ 259
6.25 hindar
Hindar ‘behind, beyond, after’ occurs with the acc for motion 6x in Matthew and
Mark, 1x in Luke (8:22), and with the dat for location 8x (cf. Marcq 1969: 214ff.).
Besides case-ambiguous hindar marein (7x) ‘(to/on) the other side of the lake’,
note gagg hindar mik, satana (Mk 8:33) ‘go behind me, Satan!’, was miþ þus | hindar
Jaurda|nau (Sk 4.1.11ff.) ‘was with you beyond the Jordan’.
Hindar markos (Mt 8:34, Mk 5:17) ‘beyond the borders’ (i.e. ‘out of the territory’)
focuses on the goal while Gk. apò tõn horíōn ‘from the borders’ focuses on leaving
the area (Borrmann 1892: 13). To marka (Bl 1v.6) ‘limit’, the plural designates the
boundary and the territory within (Pausch 1954: 60f.).
An idiomatic use occurs in nist hindar uns (Lk 9:13) ‘we do not have’. The Greek and
Latin versions have a dative of possession, which is also native Gothic (§4.38).
6.26 inu(h)
For inu(h) + acc ‘without, excluding’, the basic form is inu (LIPP 2.241, 243). Inuh (9x)
is the only form in the Gospels (5x), but inu predominates elsewhere (15x).15
(104) mann timrjandin razn ana airþai inuh grunduwaddju (Lk 6:49)
‘(like) a man building a house on the ground without a foundation’
(105) fimf þūsundjos | waire inuh qinons | jah barna (Sk 7.2.9ff.)
‘five thousand (of) men, excluding women and children’
6.27 ne a and ne
Ne a ‘near’ (23x, 4 dupl) is listed as an adverb (e.g. Skeat 1868: 180; Ryder 1951: 203ff.;
GED 265; Snædal 2013a: ii. 373; cf.). A clear adverbial use appears in (106).
(106) was-uh þan neƕa dulþs Iudaie,
was-and then near feast.nom.sg Jew.gen.pl
so hleþrastakeins (John 7:2)
the making.fast.of.temporary.shelters (Ebbinghaus 1976b: 356)
‘and the feast of the Jews was then at hand, the Feast of Tabernacles’
15 Rom 7:8, 9A, 10:14A <ina>, 11:29A, 1Cor 4:8A, 15:27A, 2Cor 10:13, 15B, 1Tim 5:21A, Philem 14,
Sk 1.2.7. At 2Cor 12:2, 3, Eph 2:12, 1Tim 2:8, the B MS has inuh.
260 P-Words
6.28 ufarjaina
The hapax ufar-jaina [over-yon] ‘beyond’ appears to be a preposition but may just be
an adverb (so Snædal, for instance):
(109) ufarjaina izwis aiwaggeljon merjan (2Cor 10:16B)
beyond you.dat.pl gospel.acc.sg preach.inf
‘to preach the gospel (in lands) beyond you’
[Gk. eis tà huperékeina hūmõn euaggelísasthai]
Ufarjaina is unique and a calque on the equally unique Gk. huperékeina ‘beyond’.
This is also listed as an adverb but accompanied by the genitive case (hūmõn ‘of you’).
It seems to occur only in this passage, and is preceded by eis tà ‘into the (acc pl n),
which suggests that huperékeina might be neuter plural, lit. ‘into the over-yons of you’.
Either an adverb or a neuter plural is consistent with the Latin in illa quae ultrā vōs
sunt ‘into those (places) which are beyond you (ultrā vōs)’. Goth. jaina (= Gk. ekeĩna
‘those yon’) could also be neuter plural (Bezzenberger 1873: 76), which does not pre-
clude an adverbial use (‘over-yon with reference to you’). Kapteijn (1911: 267) takes
izwis as a dative of comparison. While claimed to be nonidiomatic (Velten 1930: 348f.)
or irregular (LCG 222f.), nothing syntactic is violated even if the morphology is not
transparent.
6.28–30 ufarjaina, ufaro, undar, undaro 261
6.29 ufaro
Ufaro occurs twice as an adverb (Jn 11:38 ‘in front; on top’, Sk 4.2.22 ‘on top, supreme’),
twice as a P + gen (Lk 10:19 ‘(up)on’, Eph 1:21A/B ‘above’), and four times as a P + dat
‘over’ (Lk 2:8, 19:19, Sk 4.2.21, 4.3.19). It differs from ufar ‘over’ in several ways, one
being that ufaro can involve treading/stepping on (Takahaši 1985: 785).
(110) atgaf izwis waldufni trudan ufaro waurme jah skaurpjono (Lk 10:19)
‘I gave you the power to tread upon serpents and scorpions’
(111) þairhwakandans16 jah witandans wahtwom nahts ufaro hairdai seinai (Lk 2:8)
‘staying awake and keeping watch at night over their flock’
For ‘under’ there is one occurrence of undar + acc, and it is directly parallel to uf:
(113) ei uf melan satjaidau aiþþau undar ligr
that under bushel.acc put.3sg.opt.pass or under bed.acc
‘(a lamp) that it may be put under a basket or under a bed?’ (Mk 4:21)
Undaro + dat occurs twice. Note the use of af in nearly a partitive sense in (114).
(114) jah auk hundos undaro biuda matjand af drauhsnom barne (Mk 7:28)
‘yet even the dogs under the table eat from the children’s scraps’
16 Þairhwakandans ‘staying awake through’ and Vet. Lat. vigilantēs ‘staying awake’ (plus cod. Palatinus
pernoctantēs ‘spending the night’) (VL 1976: 17) may reflect a nonextant Greek text with agrupnoũntes
‘being awake’ rather than the sole-attested agrauloũntes ‘abiding in the fields’ (Burton 1996b: 88, w. lit).
262 P-Words
Goth. in andwairþja ‘in the presence of ’ + gen or dat. For the origin cf. in and-
wairþja meinamma (Lk 4:7) ‘in my presence’. In midumai wulfe (Lk 10:3) ‘in the midst
of wolves’ is calqued on Vet. Lat. in mediō lupōrum ‘id.’ (Odefey 1908: 111).
Another phrasal P is in midjaim (Mk 14:60, Lk 4:35, 6:8) ‘in the middle/center’,
generalized from the standard attributive use: in midjaim laisarjam (Lk 2:46) ‘in the
midst of (among) the teachers’, in midjaim im (Mk 9:36) ‘in their midst’ (cf. M. Krause
1995: 14). For the singular, cf. ni gabauiþ in midjamma garda | meinamma taujands
hauhairtein (Bl 2r.14f.) ‘will not dwell within my house practicing deceit’.
Note also þairh midjans ins (Jn 8:59, Lk 4:30) ‘through their midst’, þairh midja
Samarian jah Galeilaian (Lk 17:11) ‘through the midst of (i.e. along the border of)
Samaria and Galilee’, ana midjai dulþ (Jn 7:14) ‘in the midst of the festival’.
17 The relations cited in their Latin forms in Table 6.3 are ubi ‘where?’ (location), quō ‘whither?’ (goal),
quā ‘by which?’ (path), and unde ‘whence?’ (source). ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ refer to the location of some
object inside or outside of another object. As to contact, of course, if something is ‘over’ or ‘under’ an object,
there is no implied contact with that object. Rousseau (2012: 120ff.) uses the same Latin oppositions
slightly differently (§3.31). Another classification is presented in Hewson (Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 292).
6.34 Verbal Prefixes 263
ufar + acc
QUA? þairh + acc and + acc
—
Most Ps are not limited to spatial relations, but have more abstract reference
points. Additionally, for instance, bi + acc is also used in the temporal sense
of ‘within’, an extension of spatial ‘around’ [+acc] because the time period is
circumscribed.
(116) o sa gatairands þo alh jah bi þrins dagans gatimrjands þo (Mk 15:29)
‘ha! the one that tears down the temple and in three days (re)builds it!’ (§3.13)
af- ‘away, off ’: af-maitan* ‘cut off ’, af-niman ‘take away (from)’, af-dumbnan* (impv
-dumbn Mk 4:39) ‘be still (muzzled)’, af-satjan ‘divorce’
afar- ‘after’: afar-laistjan* ‘follow after’
ana- ‘up(on), over, to(ward), at, re-’: ana-aukan ‘add’, ana-kaurjan* ‘overburden’,
ana-niujan* ‘renew’ (Gk. (ana)kainóō Kind 1901 :22), ana-drigkan* ‘get drunk’,
ana-slepan* ‘fall asleep’ (inception: Wilmanns 1896: 145; West 1982: 155), ana-
timrjan* ‘build upon’, ana-þiwan* ‘enslave’ (Gould 1916: 26)
and- ‘against, to, un-’: and-standan* ‘withstand, oppose’, and-bindan ‘untie’
at- ‘toward (speaker), against, down, by, at’: at-haitan* ‘summon (to the speaker)’,
at-gaggan* ‘go to’, at-satjan ‘set before’, at-standan* ‘stand by’, at-steigan* ‘descend’,
at-þinsan* ‘draw to (the speaker)’ (Gould 1916: 13)
bi- ‘around, all over’: bi-sai an* ‘look around’, bi-skaban* (1Cor 11:5A PPP dat sg f
wk biskabanon) ‘shave (the head) all over’
dis- dis-tairan* ‘tear apart’, dis-dailjan* ‘distribute’, dis-huljan* ‘cover’, dis-sigqan* ‘set
(over something)’, dis-niman* ‘possess’, etc. (Rolffs 1908; West 1982)
du- ‘to, be-’: du-rinnan* ‘run up (to)’, du-ginnan* ‘begin’
fair- intensive: fair-weitjan ‘gaze’, fair-greipan* ‘take hold of ’
faur- ‘before (spatial), privative for-’: faur-lagjan ‘set before’, faur-biudan* ‘command,
forbid’, faur-qiþan ‘(make an) excuse’
faura- ‘before’ (temporally): faura-qiþan* ‘say before, prophesy’ (Laird 1940: 143)
fra- ‘separation; pejoration; re-’: fra-wairpan* ‘cast off ’, fra-dailjan* ‘distribute’,
fra-gildan* ‘repay’, fra-qiþan* ‘curse’, fra-waurkjan* ‘act wrongly, sin’
ga- ‘with, together; completely, utterly’: ga-lisan* ‘collect’, ga-brannjan* ‘burn up’,
ga-brikan* ‘break to bits’, ga-waurkjan ‘work out, effect’
in- ‘in(to), en-’: in-agjan* ‘warn’ (§6.42), in-liuhtjan ‘enlighten’; for this and other
inchoative verbs with in-, see Wilmanns (1896: 145)
miþ- ‘with, together’: miþ-qiman* ‘come along with’, miþ-sokjan ‘argue with’
þairh- ‘through’: þairh-leiþan ‘go through’ (§9.22)
uf- ‘under, subject to; up’: uf-hnaiwjan ‘subject’, uf-gairdan* ‘gird up’ (§4.11)
ufar- ‘over, above, more than’: ufar-hugjan* ‘be conceited’ (2Cor 12:7A/B)
und- ‘(up/on)to’: und-rinnan* ‘fall to (by inheritance)’, und-greipan ‘seize (on)’
us- ‘out (of), away (from); (increasing) up(ward); thoroughly’, aspectual functions
(Broz 2013): us-dreiban ‘drive out’, us-laisjan* ‘teach thoroughly’, ur-reisan ‘get up,
arise’, etc. (see Wilmanns 1896: 149–57; Wolf 1915)
6.35 Gothic and Greek prefix correspondences 265
Gothic has some 720 prefixed verbal constructs built on roughly 410 verb bases
(Bucsko 2011: 60).18 Prefixation is the primary means of altering the meaning of
Gothic verbs and deriving new verbs. Most verbs can take prefixes for direction, location,
figurative, and metaphorical meanings, as well as aspect and Aktionsart (§§9.12ff.).
The list in Bucsko (2011: 39f.) contains all thirty-one preverbs in use, which may be
reduced by taking into account possible variants: fair- / fairra, faur- / faura-, fra- / fram,
in- / inn-, und- / unþa-, ur- ~ us- / ut-. Bucsko (ibid. 62f.) accepts ur- ~ us- and und- / unþa-
but the latter connection is synchronically tenuous, given unþa-þliuhan* (2x) ‘escape’.
18 Major studies of Gothic preverbs and prepositions include Mourek (1890), Beer (1918a), Rice (1932),
Grewolds (1932), Sizova (1978), Lloyd (1979), West (1982), M. Krause (1987, 1995), Bucsko (2011). Bucsko
(pp. 47ff.) confirms considerable overlap between preverbs and prepositions but little with adverbs.
266 P-Words
More recently discovered Gothic texts will necessitate revisions in the numbers in
Table 6.5, but they remain close enough to give a reasonably accurate overview of
the correspondences (cf. Grewolds 1932). Completely accurate figures are, of course,
impossible because there are countless judgment calls on the precise meaning of the
prefixes in both Greek and Gothic. This is highlighted by the attempt at nuances
in Beer (1918a, 1921) and the different classifications in, for instance, Rice (1932), West
(1982), M. Krause (1987), Bucsko (2011), and Katz (2016). The simplest to evaluate
functionally are the preverbs indicating direction and location, but even those are far
from unequivocal.
For ‘in’ before ‘under’, cf. Eng. in under (*under in) and Goth. inn-uf-slupun
(Gal 2:4A/B) ‘they slipped in surreptitiously’, modeled on Gk. par-eis-érkhesthai ‘go in
beside or secretly’ despite the inner position of eis ‘in(to)’ (cf. Casaretto 2014: 51).
When instruments and other relations are added, they conform in the unmarked
case to the instrument > location > result portion of the thematic relations
hierarchy (Miller 2014b: 128f., w. lit), hence miþ- before the others, like Eng. without,
within, etc. When ga- has a lexical aspect function (§§8.10f.), it is nearest the verb.
When ni ‘not’ is present with more than one preverb, the order from the verb out is
as in Table 6.7 (Wolmar 2015: 37).
The only Gothic verb with three prefixes is 3sg pret miþ-inn-ga-laiþ (Jn 18:15) ‘went
in with’ (Grewolds 1932: 9). Since, however, simplex *leiþan does not exist, this may
boil down to galeiþan ‘come, go’ with two prefixes. Inn-galeiþan ‘go into’ corresponds
to Gk. eis-érkhesthai ‘id.’, and miþ-inn-galeiþan* to sun-eis-érkhesthai ‘go into with’
(Casaretto 2014: 50f.). To declare with Bennett (1972: 108) that inn is just a separate
268 P-Words
Not everyone agrees to the double preverb: inn and ni are printed by Streitberg and
Snædal as free words and the verb is listed as at-gaggan*. Still, inn-at-bairan* ‘bring in’
(only 3pl pret opt inn-at-bereina Lk 5:18, 19) is listed as a double-prefix verb,
suggesting that the rationale for not so listing inn-at-gaggan* is the allowance of
intercalated ni, a very arbitrary criterion. Finally, since (118) involves a subordinate
clause, inn and ni must be adjoined (Ryder 1949: 32f.; see §§6.40, 6.43).
With many verbs, the relevant criterion is whether it occurs with and without
tmesis. For instance, ana-niujan* ‘renew’ is so listed because it occurs with nothing
inserted (ana-niujada 2Cor 4:16B, ana-niwidin Col 3:10B) as well as with tmesis: 2pl
opt an-uþ-þan-niujaiþ (Eph 4:23A/B) ‘and then renew’. Since all of these have the
same syntactic potential, the only nonarbitrary criterion is that “if a string of mor-
phemes can be shown to be separable by a syntactic process, the string cannot consti-
tute a single lexical entry” (Eythórsson 1995: 125). This applies to word formation, not
surface strings.
19 The order of -(u)h/þ-þan- ‘and then’ is the same as that in an-uþ-þan-niujaiþ ‘and then renew’ men-
tioned in §6.37. These are native Gothic constructs because (i) there is nothing like them in New Testament
Greek or Latin, and (ii) the constituent order generally, as in (119), differs from the linear order of the
corresponding constituents in Greek (GGS 50; Grewolds 1932: 5; Fourquet 1938: 248; pace Danielsen 1968:
123, w. lit). Adjunction of clitics and prefixes alike suggests that the prefixes were independent particles by
origin (Goetting 2007: 313, w. lit; Ramat 2008; many examples in Dunkel 2014). Syntactically, they are
functional heads (Eythórsson 1995: 121–34).
6.39 Optional and obligatory particle adjunction 269
This verb is generally listed as ga-miþ-sandjan* (e.g. Snædal), which is curious because
miþ is not part of the verb at all but a contextually incorporated preposition (§§6.41ff.).
Snædal follows the tradition in listing all such as separate verbs, e.g. miþ-in-sandjan*
for miþinsandida imma broþar (2Cor 8:18A/B) ‘I sent in the brother with him’.
As to (119), since (i) aspectual ga- is nearest the verb unless separated by clitics, and
(ii) preposition incorporation follows verb movement to T(ense) (§6.43), the ga- here
cannot be aspectual but must be inserted to host the clitics. This would have arisen
by analogy to legitimate examples, such as 1sg ga-þ-þan-traua (2Tim 1:5A/B) ‘and
(-þ = -uh) I am now confident’.
The implication of the unique (119) is that ga- is not confined to semantic functions
and can have a structural function. The warrant is that there is often no clear
distinction between verbs with and without ga- (§§6.45, 9.10f.; Pollak 1971: 26ff.;
Yoshida 1980).20
Particles obligatorily adjoin to participles only with movement into a DP; cf. þai
inn-ga-leiþandans (Mt 7:13) ‘those entering (ones)’ beside at-gaggands inn (Mt 9:25)
‘entering in’. In participial function, all particles may but need not be adjoined, e.g. jah
inn-at-gaggands qaþ (Mk 5:39) ‘and entering in he said’ (Ryder 1949: 62ff., 1951: 208f.).
Complete particle adjunction plausibly accompanies movement of the participle to
a higher syntactic position (Eythórsson 1995: 152–6).
In main clauses, verbs with two particles allow the outermost to be stranded, but
in subordinate clauses both must be adjoined, as is typical of verb-final languages
(cf. Delbrück 1911: 74).21 All of the examples are collected in Ryder (1949: 57–60, 1951:
210ff.). An example of each follows.
20 It is usually assumed that the prefix has some stress at least to host the clitics (e.g. GGS 50, w. lit;
Rousseau 2012: 61; Rauch 2017: 241). Bennett (1972: 109f.) argues that ga- bore no lexical stress, but see
Bammesberger (1981a). Syncope of the u of -uh ‘and’ could follow either from the preverb bearing (some)
stress or from the entire preverbal string being proclitic to the verb (cf. Bennett 1970: 470). The facts are
unknown.
21 The alleged counterexamples cited by Eythórsson (1995: 43f.) are irrelevant. Two involve ga-, which
is inseparable (§6.37). The other two involve at and us, which are prepositions but never adverbs or
separable particles. Moreover, both of these occur inside of the P-words that are separable (§6.38).
Eythórsson himself (p. 121) admits that these are “near inseparable”. This means only that clitics can
intervene between them and the verb root, not that they can be phonologically independent of the verb.
270 P-Words
The verb is listed (e.g. Snædal) as inn-at-tiuhan* despite the parallel (121), for which the
verb is listed as at-tiuhan. The criteria for the listing of Gothic verbs are thus
arbitrary. The problem is that syntactic as well as lexical and morphological factors
are involved, and there is no easy way to construct a lexicon that accurately reflects
these variables.
In (123a) the full PP occurs, while in (123b) the P is adjoined to the verb; see (124).
(124) VP VP
V PP → V PP
feohtan
P DP P V P DP
on hine on feohtan on hine
In general, with P-incorporation, the object (which keeps the case associated with the P)
is stranded from the P by (left-)adjunction of the P to the verb (here represented by
22 The issues in this section are discussed in detail in Miller (1993: ch. 5; 2014b: ch. 4, w. lit). Šereikaitė
(2016) appears to need only direct merge, not adjunction, but her trees are parametrized for left branch-
ing. (Left-)adjunction is also merge but with no pre-set linearization. Not all constructs require (left-)
adjunction. In P + N compounds (e.g. in-house), for instance, direct merge alone is needed.
6.41 P-incorporation in Gothic 271
splitting the verb-node and crossing out on in its position of origin), as in most
(especially older) Indo-European languages (Miller 1993: ch. 5, w. lit).
Left adjunction is the norm in head movement, which involves raising from head
to higher head. The only exceptions to left adjunction involve nonverbal functional
heads and their complements, e.g. preposition plus object (in prison : imprison),
Degree plus root (over load : overload). Apart from those, (left-)adjunction is regular
in word formation.
In (126), nauþjan* ‘force’ incorporates the P ana ‘on(to), (up)on’, leaving its acc
case feature on þuk ‘you’.
(126) jabai ƕas þuk ana-nauþjai rasta aina
if anyone you.acc.sg on-force.3sg.opt mile.acc.sg one.acc.sg.f
‘if anyone should force one mile on you’ (Mt 5:41)
Since there is otherwise no verb ana-nauþjan*, the simplest account is to assume that
it derives from *nauþjai ana þuk, that being precisely its meaning.
Ana incorporates with qiman ‘come’ in (127).
(127) aggilus fraujins ana-qam ins (Lk 2:9)
angel lord.gen.sg onto-came they.acc
‘an angel of the lord came onto them’
Graban ‘dig’ in its two occurrences has no complement. Bi in the sense of ‘around,
about’ takes accusative case. This predicts that bi-graban* (1x) will have an accusative
complement (Wilmanns 1896: 133). Likewise, bi-standan* (2x) ‘stand around,
surround’ and bi-waibjan* (3x) ‘wrap around, wind about’ take accusative complements
272 P-Words
(ibid. 132). This is sometimes misleadingly referred to as transitivizing bi- (e.g. West
1982: 155).
(128) bi-graband fijands þeinai grabai þuk
around-dig.3pl enemy.nom.pl your.nom.pl.m ditch.dat.sg you.acc.sg
jah bi-standand þuk jah bi-waibjand þuk (Lk 19:43)
and around-stand.3pl you and around-wrap.3pl you
‘your enemies will dig a trench around you (lit. dig around you with a trench) and
surround you and hem you in’
Since most of the Pre-Vulgate versions mirror the Greek text (VL 1976: 219), and the
Gothic does not differ much in constituency, Latin influence is unlikely (pace Marold
1882: 45f.). If anything, circumfodient in cod. Palatinus is modeled on Goth. bigraband.
The difference is striking between ga-smait imma ana augona (Jn 9:6) ‘smeared
(mud) on his eyes’ with P ana ‘on(to)’ and the P-less bi-smait mis augona (Jn 9:11)
‘smeared (mud) about my eyes’. Incorporated bi ‘around, about’ licenses an accusative
object in syntax.
The dative case with afar-laistjan* (6x) ‘follow after, pursue’ is most likely from afar
‘after’ (Delbrück 1907: 61): allamma waurstwe godaize afar-laistidedi (1Tim 5:10A)
‘she pursued all (manner) of good works’.
Ufar ‘over’ can take dative or accusative complements for motion or location (§6.17).
Significantly, ufar-skadwjan* (3x) ‘cast a shadow over; overshadow’ can take either:
(129) warþ milhma jah ufar-skadwida ins (Lk 9:34)
got-to-be cloud and over-shadow.3sg.pret they.acc
‘a cloud formed and enveloped them’
The most productively incorporated Gothic P is miþ + dat ‘with’; cf. (133), for
which the Greek also incorporates sún ‘with’, leaving dative case in the complement
(cf. Winkler 1896: 86f., 147). Velten (1930: 498) implies that the Gothic is modeled
on the Greek, but the construction is native to most of the older Indo-European
languages.
(133) dugunnun miþ-sokjan imma (Mk 8:11)
begin.3pl.pret with-query.inf he.dat.sg
‘they began to argue with him’
[Gk. rxanto su-zēteĩn autõi ‘id.’]
This passage in the Vulgate and some Vetus Latina versions has both P-incorporation
and P-copy (§6.43): coepērunt con-quīrere cum eō ‘id.’, but there is also Vet. Lat. disceptāre
in place of conquīrere (VL 1970: 68).
P-incorporation is frequent with wisan ‘be’; cf. miþ-wisan* [be with] ‘support’ in ni
manna mis miþ-was (2Tim 4:16A) ‘no man stood by me’ (Velten 1930: 507). Compare
also ufar-wisan* [be beyond] ‘go beyond, transcend, surpass’ with incorporation of
ufar [+acc] ‘beyond’:
(134) gawairþi gudis þat - ei ufar-ist all ahane
peace god.gen.sg nom.sg.n-rel over-is all.acc.sg reason.gen.pl
‘the peace of God that is over (i.e. surpasses) all understanding’ (Phil 4:7B)
Consider the incorporation of miþ ‘with’ (+dat) with respect to neg ni in (135); for
the verb miþ-qiman* ‘come along with’ (cf. Ryder 1949: 33–6, w. lit; Götti 1974: 72).
(135) managei . . . seƕun . . . þatei miþ – ni – qam siponjam
many.nom.pl saw.3pl comp with neg came.3sg disciple.dat.pl
seinaim Iesus in þata skip (Jn 6:22)
poss.refl.dat.pl Jesus in D.acc.sg.n boat.acc.sg.n
‘many saw that Jesus did not come with his disciples into the boat’
The Greek text also has P-incorporation but the verb does not adjoin to neg ou: hóti
ou sun-eis-ẽlthen toĩs mathētaĩs autoũ ‘that he did not come in (eis) with (sun) his
disciples’.
The Gothic order miþ-ni-qam is instructive in showing the order of adjunction.
First the verb adjoins to neg ni, then miþ is adjoined to that complex. The order is
reversed with prohibitive ni ‘(do) not’ (Wolmar 2015: 35). See (136).
(136) iþ nu ga – melida izwis ni bland-an . . .
but now prfx-write.1sg.pret you.dat.pl prohib mingle-inf
274 P-Words
The reverse orders of the two negative functions in Gothic is readily explained in
terms of a more articulated left periphery. Although the left periphery is divided
slightly differently by Cinque, Chomsky, Rizzi, Westergaard, and others (see
Miller 2010: ii. ch. 8, w. lit), the leading idea is that speech act (Force/illocutionary)
moods (imperative, admonitive, prohibitive, etc.) are outermost (highest) in the sen-
tential structure, higher than other moods (evaluative, evidential), modalities, and
Tense. In ordinary indicative sentences, the Gothic verb adjoins to T and (if present)
neg. But since the verb moves only that high, it does not adjoin to prohibitive ni, the
outermost head in the left periphery. Consequently, prohibitive ni appears outside
the other heads that can adjoin to the verb, such as prepositions.
Greek and Latin attest four historical stages of P-incorporation. The first stage involves
adjunction of P to a verb. Stage 2 features lexicalization. Goth. af-niman, for instance,
has two very distinct meanings: (a) ‘take away from’ {x takes y from z}, (b) ‘remove’
{x takes away y}. For meaning (b) cf. afnimiþ þana stain (Jn 11:39) ‘take away the stone’.
This is the beginning of the process of opacation and lexicalization. In the third stage,
to insist on meaning (a), a P-copy occurs as an option in syntax. In the final stage,
P-incorporation ceases to be productive, and the copy ceases to be a copy but becomes
obligatory, in turn rendering the verbal prefix vacuous.
Stage 3 is attested in Greek, Latin, and other early Indo-European languages.
In Gothic (137) co-occurs with (138) (Goetting 2007: 319).
(137) þat - ei habaiþ af – nimada imma (Mk 4:25)
acc.sg.n–rel have.3sg from-take.3sg.pass he.dat.sg
‘what he has will be taken from him’
To give an idea of the relative frequency of these options, afnimada co-occurs with af
five times, but there is only one example without P af in syntax (137), and it has an
exact counterpart with af in (138).
In theories in which movement is effected by copy and deletion, P-copy is explained
by failure to delete the remnant P after copying it. P-copy with deletion failure is
6.44 Preverb gapping? 275
rampant in Middle English, e.g. To whom she af fyrst trouþe to (Robert Mannyng,
Handlyng Synne 8390) ‘to whom she gave first trothe to’ (Miller 2010: ii. 253–6).
Many examples of so-called pleonasm (P-copy) have been documented for Gothic
(GrGS 245f.; Goetting 2007). P-copy is usually a faithful rendering of the Greek,
except in the following instance (Goetting 2007: 333), where Gothic has P-adjunction
(139a) and Greek P-copy (139b). The Latin (139c) agrees with the Gothic text.
(139) a) jah allai marein þairh – iddjedun (1Cor 10:1A)
and all.nom.pl.m sea.acc through-go.3pl.pret
‘and all traversed the sea’
b) kaì pántes dià tẽs thalássēs di – ẽlthon
and all.nom.pl.m through the.gen sea.gen through-go.3pl.aor
c) et omnēs mare trāns – iērunt
and all.nom.pl.m sea.acc across-go.3pl.pf
In (140), the Greek and Latin verbs have no prefix and only a P in syntax, while the
Gothic text has P-incorporation and P-copy.
(140) bi – rodjandein bi ina þata (Jn 7:32)
about-talking.acc.sg.f about he.acc.sg D.acc.sg.n
‘mumbling this about him’
[Gk. goggúzontos perì autoũ taũta, Vulg. murmurantem dē illō haec ‘id.’]
One can debate whether this is genuinely an instance of preverb reduction. Although
the Greek text has proegráphē ‘was written before’ in both places, restoring the sense
of ‘before’ in the second occurrence is unnecessary semantically.
The second example (142) is even more dubious.
(142) þai ufarhiminakundans . . . þis himinakundins (1Cor 15:48–9A/B)
‘those [who are] of (over)heaven . . . of the heavenly one’
The compound himina-kunds* ‘heaven-born’ is not a verb and, even more so than in
(141), the prefix is largely vacuous (cf. LCG 227), although the Greek text repeats it:
epouránioi . . . epouraníou. The problem is, this is a different kind of construct (ep(ì)
ouranio- ‘on/in heaven’), and Goth. ufar- is an overtranslation, an attempt to capture
Gk. epí but with a different meaning.
A potential example of preverb gapping occurs in (143).
(143) . . . gafilhan attan meinana. (22) . . . let þans dauþans
(ga)filhan seinans dauþans (Mt 8:21f.)
‘ . . . to bury my father . . . let the dead bury their dead’
In the repeated verb, editors have supplied ga-, but it is not in the manuscript and
Pollak (1971: 27; 1972: 51) cites this as an example of the equivalence of prefixed and
unprefixed forms. For Scherer (1970: 94) gafilhan . . . filhan illustrates marked . . . unmarked
subsequence, the latter due to coordination. Similarly, Rousseau (2016: 421) considers
filhan an irrefutable example of deprefixation.24 The Greek text has the unprefixed
aor inf thápsai ‘to bury’ in both instances. But there is no reason the Gothic cannot
be interpreted ‘to bury my father [one time] . . . let the dead [continue to] bury
their dead’.
Generally speaking, the presence or absence of preverbs has invited considerable
editorial speculation and tampering. Consider (144).
(144) ni manna lukarn . . . uf ligr gasatjiþ, ak ana lukarnastaþin satjiþ (Lk 8:16)
‘no one puts a lamp under a bed, but puts (it) on a lampstand’
́ ēs títhēsin, all’ epì lukhníās epitíthēsin]
[Gk. oudeìs dè lúkhnon . . . hupokátō klin
Greek has aor prt deírantes ‘beating’ in both places, and no intensifying adverbs. The
only difference in the Gothic is in the objects: ina vs. jainana. Both of these should be
definite unless jainana differs in specified definite features. For potential trade-offs
between prefixation and specified definiteness in objects see §9.11.
Pollak also cites (146) for the equivalence of prefixed and unprefixed verbs.
(146) haihait atwopjan ina, jah wopidedun þana blindan (Mk 10:49)
‘he gave an order to call him hither, and they summoned the blind (man)’
One possibility is that ina is definite but þana blindan has specified definite features.
Another is that at-wopjan means ‘call hither’, not the same as wopjan ‘call’. That Greek
has unprefixed phōnēthẽnai . . . phōnoũsin does not entail that Gothic cannot specify
directionality.
In undgripun ina . . . jah ni gripuþ mik (Mk 14:46, 49) ‘they seized/arrested him . . . and
you did not arrest me’, the pronominal objects should not differ in definiteness, but
they differ in animacy,25 and differential object marking crosslinguistically can depend
on definiteness (§9.11) and/or animacy (Van Gelderen 2011: 176–80; Levin 2017). The
distance (four verses) is rather large for gapping, and another question is whether the
verbs differ semantically. Greek has unprefixed aorists ekrátēsan . . . ekrat sate (kratéō
‘overpower, seize’). Undgreipan also translates the bounded aorist infinitive kratẽsai
‘to seize’ at Mk 12:12, and has a figurative use in undgreip libain aiweinon (1Tim
6:12A/B) ‘seize the eternal life’ (Gk. epilaboũ ‘take hold of ’).
Gamanweiþ (Mk 1:2) ‘(will) prepare (3sg)’ . . . manweiþ (Mk 1:3) ‘prepare (2pl)’ may
involve gapping (Rousseau 2016: 422), but renders Gk. kata-skeuásei (3sg fut) ‘will
make ready’ . . . hetoimásate (2pl aor impv) ‘prepare’, i.e. prefixed . . . unprefixed.
Andhauseiþ ‘listens to’ in Jn 9:31 is followed by hauseiþ hears’ (Gk. unprefixed
akoúei . . . akoúei ‘hears . . . hears’), and in turn by gahausiþ was ‘was heard’ in 9:32.
Another potential example of preverb gapping occurs in (147).
(147) Iūdās sa galewjands26 ina . . . Iūdās sa lewjands ina (Jn 18:2, 5)
‘Judas, the one betraying him . . . Judas the one betraying him’
[= Gk. Ioúdās ho paradidoùs autón . . . Ioúdās ho paradidoùs autón]
Since ina is the same with both verb forms, neither definiteness nor animacy can play
a role. The Greek text has prefixed para-didoús ‘betraying’ in both occurrences, but
the Gothic has the preverb only in the first. The distance between Jn 18:2 and 18:5 is
25 Definiteness scale: pronoun > name > definite > specific indefinite > nonspecific. Animacy scale:
pronoun 1 > 2 > 3 > name > human > animate > inanimate (plants > objects > abstractions . . . ). For discus-
sion, see Miller (2010: ii. 125f., w. lit).
26 The manuscript has lewjands with ga written above (cf. Pollak 1972: 51).
278 P-Words
large enough to raise questions about the feasibility of gapping (pace Rousseau 2016:
421). Streitberg (1907a: 194) argued that galewjands refers to a past (completed) event,
while lewjands is concurrent and requires a durative form of the verb.
The simplex lewjan* ‘betray’ occurs only three times, always as lewjands and always
in a gapping sequence. Sa lewjands mik (Mk 14:42) ‘the one betraying me’ and sa lew-
jands (ina) (Mk 14:44) ‘the one betraying him’ immediately follow the prefixed passive
galewjada sunus mans (Mk 14:41) ‘the son of man will be betrayed’. Galewjada indi-
cates the betrayal that is about to be effected (telic = Streitberg’s 1907a: 195 perfective),
while lewjands is used for the (atelic) betrayer (Gk. ho paradidoús).
Whether or not preverb gapping was inherited,27 it is not obligatory synchronically
because galewjands bloþ swikn (Mt 27:4) ‘betraying innocent blood’ immediately
follows sa galewjands ina (Mt 27:3) ‘the one betraying him’, and ina galewidedi
(Mk 14:11) ‘(how) he might betray him’ immediately follows galewidedi ina (Mk 14:10)
‘(that) he might betray him’.
Some instances of potential preverb reduction, then, can be semantically contrastive
while others seem to be stylistic variants (Pollak 1971: 26, w. lit).
Example (148) appears to be gapping in the reverse order, but in reality domjan
means ‘judge, class(ify)’ and ga-domjan means ‘compare’ (Dorfeld 1885: 9), as a partial
calque on the Greek text: eg-krĩnai [in-judge] ‘reckon’ . . . sug-krĩnai [judge together]
́
‘compare’ (Lat. comparāre ‘id.’) . . . sug-krīnontes ‘comparing’ (cf. Velten 1930: 494).
(148) unte ni gadaursum domjan unsis silbans aiþþau
for neg dare.1pl judge.inf us.acc self.acc.pl.m or
ga-domjan uns du þaim sik silbans
compare.inf us.acc to dem:dat.pl.m refl:acc self.acc.pl.m
ana - filh - and - am ak eis in sis
prfx-commend-PrP-dat.pl.m but prn:nom.pl.m in refl:dat
silbam sik [[sik]] silbans mitandans jah
self.dat.pl.m refl:acc self.acc.pl.m measuring.nom.pl.m and
ga-domjandans sik silbans du sis
comparing.nom.pl.m refl:acc self.acc.pl.m to refl:dat
silbam ni fraþjand (2Cor 10:12B)
self.dat.pl.m neg understand.3pl
‘for we do not dare to class ourselves
or compare ourselves to those commending themselves;
but they, measuring themselves in (by) themselves
and comparing themselves to themselves, lack understanding’
27 The most systematic study of preverb gapping in Indo-European is by Dunkel (1978), who concludes
that the evidence for it is slim at best. See the potential examples in Turcan (1982). Gapping, of course,
need not be grammaticalized but is frequently stylistic in varying degrees; cf. Eng. from the land and
((from) the) sea. Dunkel (1979, LIPP 2.543–6) shows that P-word repetition is more frequent in early texts,
but that too is stylistic. As stylistic options in Indo-European, both P-repetition and P-gapping (if it
existed) can be expected to be affected by metrical, formulaic, and other factors.
6.44 Preverb gapping? 279
Kauffmann (1920: 228f.) notes a tendency for a prefixed form to follow an unpre-
fixed one, e.g. salbodes . . . gasalboda (Lk 7:46) ‘you anointed . . . she anointed’, bauhta . . .
usbauhta (Lk 14:18–19) ‘I bought . . . I bought’, nemuþ . . . andnemuþ (2Cor 11:4B) ‘you
received . . . you accepted’. At least in the last example the meaning differs.
Given the number of verbs that can occur with or without a prefix with no obvious
difference in meaning (see West 1982, Katz 2016), by the law of averages some instances
that appear to involve preverb gapping can be accidental. Moreover, many examples
show that gapping was at most a stylistic option. See (150).
(150) saei gasaƕ mik, gasaƕ attan (Jn 14:9)
‘he who has seen me has seen the father’
Because of the predilection for alliteration and repetition (§1.6), examples like (150)
are commonplace (Kauffmann 1920: 229f.).
The data, ambiguous though most of them are, suggest that, even if Gothic has
some cases of preverb reduction, it was a nonproductive stylistic option.
CH APTER 7
Compounding
7.1 Introduction
Compounds are formed by merging two or more words to make one syntactic head.
Generally classed as subordinate, attributive, or coordinate, they can all be endocen-
tric (headed) or exocentric (headless) (Scalise and Bisetto 2009). This taxonomy has
been simplified by many. For instance, it has been argued that exocentric compounds
are in fact also endocentric. While I endorse this position, the present exposition
follows the traditional terminology for simplicity. Linguistically theoretical details
of all major compound types are discussed in Miller (2014b, w. lit) and will not be
repeated here.1
In Gothic, some 40% (94 out of 234) of all compounds are loan translations (Snædal
2015a). At the same time, many Greek compounds are translated with phrases, e.g.
Greek nom pl m oligó-pistoi is rendered leitil galaubjandans (Mt 6:30, 8:26) ‘little
believing’, acc pl kosmo-krátoras ‘world-rulers’ becomes þans fair u habandans
(Eph 6:12A/B) ‘those holding the world’, eirēno-poie sās ‘peace-making’ becomes
gawairþi taujands (Col 1:20A/B) ‘making peace’, nom pl theo-dídaktoi ‘God-taught’ is
rendered at guda uslaisidai (1Thess 4:9B) ‘taught at (the hands of) God’, ei e-tekno-
tróphēsen, ei e-xeno-dókhēsen ‘if she has child-reared, if she has guest-entertained’
become jau barna fodidedi, jau gastins andnemi (1Tim 5:10A/B) ‘whether she has
raised children, whether she has received guests’, logo-makheĩn ‘to word-fight’ becomes
waurdam weihan (2Tim 2:14B) ‘to fight with words’, etc. (Gering 1874: 304f.; Schrader
1874: 12; many examples in Grewolds 1932: 47ff.).
When a compound is translated with a genitive, the default linearization matches
that of the Greek constituents (GrGS 291), e.g. witodis garaideins (Rom 9:4a) for Gk.
nomo-thesíā ‘law-giving’, fauramaþleis motarje (Lk 19:2) ‘head of the tax collectors’ for
Gk. arkhi-telonēs ‘chief tax collector’. The latter may have motivated the aberrant
fauramaþleis þiudos (2Cor 11:32B) vs. Gk. ethn-árkhēs ‘ethnarch’ (Kapteijn 1911: 286).
1 The history of compounding in Germanic (and English) is discussed in Carr (1939), Marchand (1969:
11–127), Koziol (1972: 48–88), Kastovsky (2009), Lieber (2009b), Miller (2014b). For Indo-European, see
Lindner (2011–17). For Gothic, see Kremer (1882), Johansson (1904), Grewolds (1934), Seebold (1968c),
Dolcetti Corazza (1997), Casaretto (2004, 2010), Karpov (2005a, b). Toporova (1989) gives useful figures
on 88 Gothic compounds by their degree of originality, and Toporova (1996) treats compound names.
Structurally similar compounds in Gothic and Old Frisian are discussed by Pospelova (2017).
A longer periphrasis for a compound is frijondans wiljan seinana mais þau guþ
(2Tim 3:4A/B) ‘loving their own will/desire more than (they love) God’ for Gk. phil-
(h)edonoi mãllon e philó-theoi ‘pleasure-loving more than God-loving’ (Gering 1874:
305). Kapteijn (1911: 336) observes that the Gothic is not necessarily modeled on the
Lat. voluptātum amātōrēs magis quam deī ‘lovers of pleasures more than of God’.
Rather, frijondans wiljan obeys his rule in matching the order of the constituents of
phil-(h)edonoi.
Every Greek phil(o)- compound is translated differently in Gothic (Ambrosini 1955:
260f.): broþralubo* (§7.4), faihugairns*, faihufriks, frijaþwamildeis*, gastigods (§7.9),
seinai-gairnai (margin gloss for sik frijondans 2Tim 3:2A = Gk. phíl-autoi ‘lovers of
themselves’ (§9.12). All but frijaþwamildeis* have the reverse order of the Greek con-
stituents by internal motivation. For instance, the cognates of -gairn- and -frik- occupy
second (compound head) position in other Germanic languages (ibid. 262ff.).
The composition vowel in Germanic is often *-a-, supposedly lost after a polysyllabic
stem in Gothic (NCG 277), but there are numerous exceptions (in both directions).
The main attempt to define the conditions under which the composition vowel
appears or is absent is Seebold (1968c; cf. GG 89; Karpov 2005a). Suggested
generalizations and exceptions will be noted in the appropriate places.
The composition vowel is lost nearly everywhere in Scandinavian (Miller 2017; cf.
NCG 279), and may be retained in Early Old English (NCG 281), where -i/u- can be
kept at all periods after a short vowel on -i/ja- and -u/wa/wō- stems (NCG 288–91). In
Old High German and Old Saxon, the composition vowel is normally dropped after
a heavy base and retained after a short vowel (NCG 298ff.).
Endocentric (but not synthetic) compounds can take -s-, as in job(s) list, gift(s)
report, truck(s) auction, antique(s) bazaar, which Trips (2006: 315–26) traces to
genitival -s-, as in OE (wið . . .) cynnes mann(um) ‘(with) kin’s men’ > OE cinnesmen(n)
kinsmen. Under the influence of londes men ‘land’s men’ the original compound
landman(n) became landesmann landsman (NCG 317). Another Old English -s-
compound is dōmesdæg doomsday, originally a genitival calque on Lat. diēs īrae
‘day of wrath; judgment day’. Significantly, the modern -s forms are largely permut-
able only with genitivals: division of parts ~ parts division; contrast pizza with
anchovies ~ anchovy (*anchovies) pizza, famous for diamonds ~ diamond(*s) famous,
rich in jewels ~ jewel(*s) rich. Juncture -s- is limited to inanimates: a cat’s tail is not
the same as a cattail ‘reedmace’ although the original form of the latter was cattes
tayle [1548].
As in contemporary Germanic, rightheaded endocentric compounds were freely
constructed in the older languages, especially in North and West Germanic, e.g. ON
vínguð ‘winegod, Bacchus’. They are labeled determinative in Carr (1939), Casaretto
(2004), Kotin (2012: 381f.), and many traditional sources, subordinate in some
modern sources. They comprise the types N+N, A+N, P+N, N+A, A+A, and the
rare V+N.
As to recursivity, compounds like OE eofor-hēafod–segn (Beowulf 2152) ‘boarhead
banner’ (most editions except Klaeber) or ēaster–sunnan-dæg (WS Gospels) ‘Easter
Sunday’ are attested only in the individual languages, and greater complexity evolves
more recently (NCG 199f.). Another example is OE biter-wyrt-drenc ‘bitter-herb
drink’ (Torre Alonso and Metola Rodríguez 2013: 31).
7.3 N + N endocentrics
For the N + N endocentrics, Carr (1939: 162) counts 136 in early Germanic and an
additional 417 in West Germanic. While one can contest the specific numbers and the
fact that no figures were collected for Northwest Germanic, the indication is that N+N
endocentrics were very productive in early Germanic and that their productivity
increased over time; cf. OE brēostweorðung ‘breast-ornament’.
For Goth. guda-skaunei* ‘god-shape’, dat sg g askaunein (Phil 2:6B) translates Gk.
en morphẽi theoũ ‘in the form of god’ (Kind 1901: 29). Gk. theómorphos ‘of divine
form, god-shaped’ corresponds to Goth. *gudaskauns, which underlies gudaskaunei*.
The noun theomorphíā is later, but nothing precludes an early appearance in Wulfila’s
Vorlage (Snædal 2015a: 82f.). Reversing the constituents (theoũ morphe) does not
7.3 N + N endocentrics 283
increase the likelihood of that phrase being the source of the Gothic compound
(pace NWG 293). Gothic compounding was productive (Grewolds 1934: 153–7), on a
lexically specific basis. In the next verse, morphen doúlou (Phil 2:7B) ‘the appearance
of a slave’ is not compounded but rendered by the phrase wlit skalkis (Kauffmann
1920: 176).
On *faþs (m -i-) ‘master; head’ (< *fadi- < *poti- GED 83, 368; EDPG 121) see
Ambrosini (1955: 268ff.), Benveniste (1963). Brūþ-faþs (Mt 9:15+) [bride-master]
‘bridegroom’ renders Gk. numphíos ‘id.’ (Pausch 1954: 40f.) but not (as often sup-
posed) numphõnos ‘(attendants) of the bridal chamber’, which has a v.l. numphíou ‘of
the groom’ (Marold 1883: 73f.; Benveniste 1963: 42f.). For ‘head’, cf. hunda-faþs (Mt
8:5+ [9x]) ‘centurion’ (Gk. kenturíōn, hekatónt-arkhos [hundred-leader]), þūsundi-
faþs [thousand-head] (Jn 18:12, dat pl -fadim Mk 6:21) ‘chiliarch’ for Gk. khīlí-arkhos
[thousand-ruler], part of the Gothic military organization (cf. Rousseau: 2012: 288).
The Greek terms originated with widespread Persian military titles (Benveniste 1966b:
67–71), like hazahra-pati- [thousand-head] (cf. Crim. hazer ‘1000’ §1.2), whence
Gothic fadi- and Armenian -pet compounds (Benveniste 1963). Swnagoga-faþs* (gen
sg -fadis Mk 5:38 etc.) ‘synagogue-head’ translates arkhi-sunágōgos ‘synagogue direc-
tor’ (Kind 1901: 14; Stolzenburg 1905: 13; Karpov 2005a: 47), but corresponds to Arm.
oło rd-a-pet ‘id.’ (Benveniste 1963: 54f., with evidence for Persian–Gothic contact).
Also translating arkhi-sunágōgos is fauramaþleis swnagogeis (see §4.13), modeled on
Lat. prīnceps synagōgae (Wolfe 2018b). Arkhi-telonēs ‘chief tax collector’ is rendered
fauramaþleis motarje (Lk 19:2) ‘head of the tax collectors’, like Lat. prīnceps (. . .)
publicānōrum (VL 1976: 210) ‘chief of the publicans’ (Winkler 1896: 320).
Arkh-iereús ‘chief priest, high priest’ is variously translated as auhumists weiha (Jn
18:13) ‘supreme holy (one)’ (used uniquely of Caiaphas as the incumbent high priest),
gen sg wk auhumistins gudjins (Jn 18:10) with auhumists ‘highest’ (§3.12), gudjins (Jn
18:15), dat sg wk reikistin gudjin (Jn 18:22) ‘noblest priest’ (uniquely used of Annas)
with reikists* ‘most powerful, mightiest’, maistin gudjin (Jn 18:24) ‘the great priest’
with maists ‘biggest’, nom pl wk auhumistans gudjans (Mt 27:62+ [14x]), maistans
gudjans (Jn 19:6), etc. (details in Werth 1973 and Ratkus 2018a). In one instance a noun
in the genitive is followed by the weak adjective in the nominative plural: gudjane
auhumistans (Mk 11:18). A compound ufargudja* ‘occurs in only one passage (§7.6).
Germanic had several compounds headed by *hūs (n -a-) ‘house’. One is Goth. gud-
hūs* [god-house] (dat sg (in) gudhūsa Jn 18:20) ‘(in) the temple’. Despite this singular
rendering, there are no attested variant readings for either Gk. hierón ‘temple’ or Lat.
templum ‘id.’.2 At least the NWGermanic forms (ON goðahús ‘house of gods, heathen
temple’, etc.), earliest of which is OHG goteshūs [c12] ‘church’ (NCG 69), if not the
2 It has been suggested (e.g. Wolfram 1976: 259f.) that a walled building was envisioned in this passage,
but teaching in the temple occurs at Mk 12:35+ (6x) with the usual in (. . .) alh ‘in the temple’. With gudhūs*
cf. the noncompounded calque in gard gudis = Gk. eis tòn oĩkon toũ theoũ (Mk 2:26, Lk 6:4) ‘into the house
of God’ (Hruby 1911: 14). Etymology and composition have no bearing on the conceptualized structure of
these edifices, as suggested by alhs ‘temple’, which was presumably originally a ‘sacred enclosed grove’
(Laird 1940: 65–9); cf. Lith. alkas ‘(holy) grove on a hill’ (EDPG 22; cf. LHE2 116).
284 Compounding
Gothic also, are supposedly loan translations of Lat. domus deī ‘house of God’ (e.g.
Hruby 1911: 14; NWG 449f.; Francovich Onesti 2011: 202), but morphologically imprecise
because ON goða- is gen pl, and Gothic has a bare stem gud-, possibly by adaptation
to guþ as the Christian God (Ganina 2001: 86). Even if it lost a juncture vowel, the
formation would not be an exact match to those in North and West Germanic. Since
gudhūs* and gud-blostreis ‘worshipper of God’ are among the rare exceptions to the
generalization that Gothic endocentric compounds have a juncture vowel, Seebold
(1968c: 80) suggests that a consonant stem is involved (cf. NWG 431f., w. lit), but else-
where guþ is an -a- stem, as in guda-skaunei* ‘God-shape’ and guda-laus* ‘godless’,
and *gud-a- is reconstructed for Germanic (EDPG 193f.; see guþ in App.). Laird (1940:
70ff.) may be right that the word is an ad hoc coinage based on gud- and hūs.
With Goth. aurti-gards (m -i-) ‘garden’ (Jn 18:1; dat sg aurtigarda Jn 18:26), trans-
lating Gk. kẽpos ‘enclosure; plantation, orchard’, cf. OE ort-geard ‘id.’ orchard (e.g.
GED 51; NWG 67; Karpov 2005a: 48; 2005b: 201; Rübekeil 2010: 274f.; pace NCG 70).
Even though *ort-a/i- (< Lat. hortus ‘garden’, an early loan: Corazza 1969: 3) and gards
‘house’ or garda* ‘courtyard, pen’ can be coextensional (NCG 331), the term may have
been understood endocentrically as a type of gard-. This would be all the more likely
if the root *ort-a/i- was opaque, notwithstanding its occurrence in Goth. aurtja*
(m -n-) [lit. ‘gardener’] ‘(tenant) farmer, vintner’ (nom pl aurtjans Lk 20:10, 14, dat pl
aurtjam Lk 20:10, 16), translating forms of Gk. geōrgós ‘farmer’ (NWG 256), as does
airþos waurstwja (2Tim 2:6B) ‘worker of the earth’ (cf. Del Pezzo 1985: 127f.).
A major difficulty in classifying Gothic compounds is the frequent lack of informa-
tion about the lexical category of a constituent. Consider þrasa-balþei* (f -n-)
[strident?-boldness] ‘contentiousness, quarrelsomeness’ (acc sg þra|sabalþein Sk
5.2.14f.). The head balþei* ‘boldness’ is transparent (§8.6), but þrasa- is unclear. It is
related to ON þrasa ‘talk big; rage’ (EbgW 44, GED 364f.) but its lexical category is
obscure. A noun is usually supposed (e.g. HGE 424f., NWG 285), but þrasa- could be
a deverbal adjective (cf. GED 364, queryingly; doubted in NWG).
Midja-sweipains (f -i-) ‘(the great) flood’ (Lk 17:27), gen sg midja|sweipainais
(Bl 1v.8f.), translates Gk. kataklusmós ‘deluge, innundation’, but midja- and the meaning
of -sweipains are in question. Conjectures range from ‘midd(le)-sweeping’, i.e. sweeping
over the “middle area” (earth), to ‘together-rushing’ (see NWG 367f.). A basic mean-
ing ‘sweeping together’ would also work, and illustrates the problem of determining
the category and meaning of the constituents, hence the difficulty with classifying the
type of compound. Whatever the composition, the form describes the overwhelming
effect of the deluge (Ambrosini 1958: 237f.).
Once thought to be a compound with the second constituent related to ON skola
‘to rinse, wash’ (e.g. Ebbinghaus 1959), spaiskuldr* (n? -a-) ‘saliva, spit(tle)’ (dat sg
spaiskuldra Jn 9:6) renders Gk. ptúsma ‘spit(tle)’. It is not a precise match to OS
spēkaldra* (dat pl specáldron Düsseldorf Glosses to Prudentius F1 101.5/6) ‘saliva, spit-
tle’, OHG speihhaltra ‘id.’, related to Goth. speiwan ‘to spit’ (§5.5) < PIE *sptiHu-; cf. Gk.
ptuō ‘spew, spit’ (EDPG 468). The details of such a compound are very obscure
(cf. GED 318, Karpov 2005a: 48). More likely, the Gothic form is a misspelling for
7.4 N + N endocentrics in Gothic 285
(or (?) expressive deformation of) *spaikuldr (Johansson 1904: 459), and these forms
are not compounds but go back to Gmc. *spaikuldra/ō- (n/f), possibly to a verb *spai-
kuljan-, as in MDu spekelen ‘to spit’, with the instrument suffix *-dra- (EDPG 464f.; cf.
NWG 547, w. additional lit).
3 The Greek word is miscited in NWG 384 and Karpov (2005a: 49) as **phoínix and derived by the lat-
ter from phoinós ‘blood-red; blood-stained, murderous’. In fact, phoĩnix has several different meanings:
‘palm tree (date-palm); crimson; phoenix (mythical bird)’. The relation of these words to one another and
to ( ) pl ‘Phoenicians’ has been treated differently (five separate roots in DELG 1217ff.). The
date-palm and the color have been claimed to be the same root as the Phoenicians (EDG 1583f.). For the
bird, cf. Egyptian b(y)nw ‘phoenix’; for the ‘date-palm’, cf. Egypt. bny.t ‘id.’ (Miller 2014a: 300, w. lit).
4 Finnish piikki ‘thorn, prick, barb, sting(er), prong, spike’ is a borrowing from French via Swedish
(Hakulinen 1968: 291–9). Thanks to Helena Halmari for this reference and discussion.
5 Figs were cultivated very early in the Caucasus (Ambrosini 1958: 238, w. lit). The root of smakka* can
be Germanic (many attempts at an etymology in GED 315, HGE 352), possibly from *smakkōjan- ‘savor’;
cf. OHG gismak ‘tasty; pleasant’ etc. < dial. IE *smogh- (Patrick Stiles, p.c.).
286 Compounding
6 North Germanic used the ‘eye’ root differently in this word: ON vind-augr, ODan wind-ughæ [wind-
eye, eye to the wind], the source of Eng. window (Miller 2014b: 104, w. lit).
7.4 N + N endocentrics in Gothic 287
1882: 24), i.e. mammonin (Elis 1903: 64). Faihuþra(ihna) may well serve as a cross
reference (Falluomini 2015: 124), but is surely also a didactic gloss (Griepentrog
1990: 24f.). See Wolfe (2018a) on faihuþraihna inwindiþos (Lk 16:9) for Gk. mamōnã
tẽs adikíās ‘mammon of unrighteousness’ or ‘mammon derived from unrighteous-
ness’. Faihuþraihn- translates Gk. mammōnãs (spelled mamōn- in the Byzantine
main text but mam(m)ōn- in the Latin versions) [Syrian god of riches] ‘riches,
wealth’ (NWG 318)
figgra-gulþ (n -a-) [finger-gold] ‘finger ring’ (acc figgragulþ Lk 15:22) translates
Gk. daktúlios ‘ring’, derived from dáktulos ‘finger’ (Grewolds 1934: 153; Karpov
2005a: 47), possibly an old compound; cf. ON fingergull ‘finger ring’ (NCG 67,
NWG 432)
fotu-bandi* (f -jō-) ‘foot-bond/shackle’ (only dat pl fotubandjom Lk 8:29), a more
precise interpretation of Gk. pédē which, though derived from poús / pod- ‘foot’, just
means ‘fetter’, pl pédai ‘shackles’ (Odefey 1908: 75; Falluomini 2015: 86; Ratkus
2016: 48; cf. Karpov 2005a: 47)
fotu-baurd (n -a-) [foot-board] ‘footstool’ (Mt 5:35; acc Mk 12:36, Lk 20:43), not a
literal translation of Gk. hupo-pódion [under-foot] ‘(foot)stool’ (Karpov 2005a: 47);
cf. ON fótborð and, with a different root vocalism, OE fōtbred ‘id.’ (NCG 67, NWG
80, Karpov 2005b: 201)
frabauhta-boka (f -ō-) ‘sales document/deed’ (acc sg Arezzo deed §10.6): compound
of boka ‘something written, document’ plus fra-bauht- ‘sale’ (possibly with general-
ized composition -a- NCG 278) to the verb fra-bugjan ‘sell’ (cf. wadja-bokos ‘record
of charges’ and NWG 43, 512f.); a technical calque on Lat. charta venditiōnis ‘sale’s
charter’ (Francovich Onesti 2011: 204)
fraþja-marzeins (f -i-) [thought-thwarting] ‘mind-deceit’: sis silbin fraþjamarzeins ist
(Gal 6:3A/B) ‘it is mind-deceit to himself; he himself has mind-deceit’, a somewhat
free rendering of Gk. heautòn phrenapatãi (Vulg. ipse sē sēdūcit) ‘he deceives him-
self ’ (Velten 1930: 343; NWG 355)
gabaurþi-waurd* (n -a-) [birth-word/record] ‘genealogy’ (gen pl -waurde 1Tim
1:4A/B), a precise calque on Gk. genea-logíā ‘id.’ (Kind 1901: 10f.; NWG 87; Karpov
2005a: 46), except that the neuter form (Kauffmann 1920: 180) is due to the con-
crete meaning; abstract -logíā ‘talk(ing)’ is rendered by -waurdei (Velten 1930: 344)
gilstra-meleins (f -(īn)i-) ‘enrollment in the tax list’: soh þan gilstrameleins frumista
warþ (Lk 2:2) ‘this enrollment was first made’ (strong frumista is predicative; with
soh ‘this’ for attributive one expects wk frumisto*: Peeters 1973); for meleins, cf.
ufar-meleins (Mk 12:16) ‘inscription (on a coin)’, derived frrom meljan ‘write’; the
first constituent is gilstr* (n -a-) ‘tax’ (gen pl gilstra Rom 13:6A) (GED 156, HGE
131, NWG 352, 551)
grundu-waddjus (f? -u-) [ground-wall] ‘foundation’ (2Tim 2:19B, dat grunduwaddjau
Eph 2:20B, acc grunduwaddju Lk 6:49, 14:29, grunduwaddjau+ Lk 6:48), not a lit-
eral translation of Gk. themélios ‘foundation’ (cf. Karpov 2005a: 48); the gender
of grunduwaddjus is claimed to be masculine (e.g. Streitberg, Snædal, Rousseau
2012: 91), based on the participle habands ‘having’ (tulgus ‘firm’ is ambiguous): aþþan
288 Compounding
tulgus grunduwaddjus gudis standiþ, habands sigljo þata (2Tim 2:19B) ‘nevertheless,
the foundation of God stands firm, having this seal’, but the participle in -ands has
been argued to be feminine as an archaism in four instances (§3.13; Seebold 1968b;
NWG 199; GG 123)
gud-blostreis (m -ja-) ‘worshipper of God’ (Jn 9:31 g þblostreis cod. Arg.) renders Gk.
theo-sebes ‘God-fearing; religious’; cf. gadob ist qinom . . . guþ blotan (1Tim 2:10A/B)
‘it is appropriate for women to revere God’ (Wrede 1891: 188; Kind 1901: 28f.;
Kauffmann 1920: 177; Laird 1940: 122f.; NWG 118; Karpov 2005a: 46; LCG 219); not
exocentric (pace Dolcetti-Corazza 1997: 12f.)
haim-oþli* (n -ja-) ‘inherited property, patrimonial homestead’ (acc pl haimoþlja
Mk 10:29, 30) is a cultural rendering of Gk. agroús (acc pl) ‘fields’ (cf. Karpov
2005a: 49); the formation is difficult (NWG 138f.) but haim- ‘homestead’ + *ōþ(a)l-
‘inheritance, possession’ (EDPG 395) makes sense legally (Pausch 1954: 57)
heiwa-frauja* (m -n-) [house-lord] ‘head of the household’ (dat sg -fraujin Mk 14:14),
a literal rendering of Gk. oiko-despótēs ‘id.’ (NWG 266; Karpov 2005a: 46), with
heiwa- < *hīwa- (OHG hī(w)a ‘wife’) < *kéi-wo- (EDPG 227, LIPP 2.413f.)
hunsla-staþs* (m -i-) [sacrifice-place] ‘(Jewish or Christian) altar’ (sg gen -stadis Mt
5:24, Lk 1:11, dat -stada Mt 5:23, 1Cor 10:18A): staþ- is an inherited word (NWG 512)
but whether or not hunsla-staþs* had an older pagan use (Velten 1930: 492; Laird
1940: 77f.), it is doubtless calqued on Gk. thusiā-sterion ‘id.’ (Karpov 2005a: 46)
kaisara-gild (n -a-) [Caesar-tax/duty] ‘imperial tax, tribute’ (acc sg skuld-u ist
kaisaragild giban kaisara, þau niu gibaima? (Mk 12:14) ‘is it lawful to give tribute to
Caesar, or should we not give (it)?’) translates Gk. kẽnsos ‘census, tribute’ (NWG 74f.)
launa-wargs* (m -a-) [reward-criminal] ‘ingrate’ (nom pl -wargos 2Tim 3:2A/B)
translates Gk. akháristos ‘ungrateful; ingrate’ which, like Vulg. ingrātus ‘id.’, can be
an adjective or substantive (cf. Karpov 2005a: 49)
liugna-waurd* (n -a-) [lie-word] ‘lie’ morphologically must be a neuter noun (Snædal
2013a: ii. 334; pace Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 14, Karpov 2005a: 46, and LCG 230, who cite
it as an adjective). Its only occurrence is in liutein liugnawaurde (1Tim 4:2A/B) ‘in
the hypocrisy of lies’. The compound appears similar to Gk. en hupokrísei pseudológōn
‘in the hypocrisy of those telling lies’ but, as noted by Jellinek (1926: 176), pseudo-
lógos ‘lie-telling’ is misinterpreted as ‘lie-word’ (cf. Gk. lógos ‘word’) (misanalyzed
by Drinka 2011: 60), as shown by Lat. in hypocrisī loquentium mendācium ‘in
the hypocrisy of those speaking falsehood’. The misunderstanding is remarkable
because Gk. mataio-lógoi ‘vain-talkers’ is correctly rendered as lausa-waurdai
(Tit 1:10A/B), nom pl m of adjectival lausa-waurds* (with laus ‘empty, void’)
lukarna-staþa* (m -n-) ‘lamp-stand’ (sg dat -staþin Mt 5:15, Lk 8:16, acc -staþan Mk
4:21): Gk. lukhníā ‘id.’, derived from lúkhnos ‘portable light, lamp’ (NWG 239f.;
Karpov 2005a: 47); lukarn (5x) is an early loan from Latin (GED 237f., NWG 379)
mati-balgs* (m -i- Brosman 2007: 226) [food-bag] ‘travelbag’ (acc matibalg Mk 6:8,
Lk 9:3, 10:4), translating Gk. perā ‘leather pouch, lunchbox’ (NWG 178, Karpov
2005a: 49); when a Gothic compound translates a single Greek word, the compound
is typically old; cf. OE metbælig (Lk 22:35 Lindisf), metbælge (Lk 22:35 Rushw)
7.4 N + N endocentrics in Gothic 289
< Gmc. *mati-balgiz (cf. NCG 45, HGE 263); balg- < *bhelgh- ‘swell’ (LIV 73f., EDPG
49, Thöny 2013: 214)
mid-gardi–waddjus* (f [see grunduwaddjus above] -u-) [mid-yard/mid-court–wall]
‘middle wall, barrier’ (acc sg midgardiwaddju Eph 2:14A ~ miþgardawaddju B)
translates Gk. mesó-toikhon [middle-wall] ‘partition wall’, rendered in Latin simply
as medium parietem ‘middle wall’. Given the translation target, other analyses are
less likely (see NWG 199). The variant may have miþ + dat garda as first constituent
(Seebold 1968c: 78), but the intent is likely a compound mid-gard- ‘mid-house’.
This is supposedly a strange rendering of Gk. meso- (Rübekeil 2010: 277f.) but the
metaphor of both groups (Jews and Gentiles) living in one figurative house with a
mid-house wall between them seems entirely reasonable.
mota-staþs* (m -i-) [toll-place] ‘tax collector’s station’: gasa motari, namin Laiwwi,
sitandan ana motastada (Lk 5:27) ‘he spotted a tax collector, named Levi, sitting at
the tax station’, rendering Gk. telonion ‘custom house’, derived from tel-onēs ‘tax
collector’ (télos ‘duty, tax, toll’ + -onēs ‘levier’ EDG 1680); since staþs (an inherited
form NWG 512) is in no way comparable to Gk. -ōn-, motastaþs* may be a semantic
loan but is not a structural calque (pace Karpov 2005a: 46)
nahta-mats* (m -i- Brosman 2007: 226) [night-meal; cf. OHG naht-maz] ‘dinner, supper’
(e.g. acc nahtamat Mk 6:21+) renders Gk. deĩpnon, the evening meal (not deverb,
pace Karpov 2005a: 48; deipnéō is denom EDG 310); cf. undaurni-mats* (§7.6)
sigis-laun (n -a-) [sigis ‘victory’ + laun acc Mt 6:1 ‘(free) gift, thanks, reward’] ‘(victory)
prize’ (sg acc allai rinnand, iþ ains nimiþ sigislaun 1Cor 9:24A ‘all run but only one
gets the prize’, dat -launa Phil 3:14A/B); translates Gk. brabeĩon ‘prize’ (NWG 315;
miscited by Karpov 2005a: 48) but is a native formation (Rousseau 2012: 288);
cf. the possibly independent OE sigelēan ‘victory reward’ (NCG 70)
skauda-raip (?n -a-) [sheath-rope/cord] ‘thong, strap, latchet’ (acc sg Mk 1:7, Lk 3:16,
Sk 3.4.20) renders Gk. hīmás ‘thong’ (GED 310, HGE 335, NWG 85f.; cf. Karpov
2005a: 49, with several errors)
staua-stols* (m -a-) [judge-seat] ‘judge’s seat, judgment seat’ (dat sg -stola Mt 27:19,
Rom 14:10C, 2Cor 5:10A/B) translates Gk. bẽma ‘step; seat; raised seat in a law-
court’ (NWG 396; Karpov 2005a: 48)
þiudan-gard-i (f -jō-) [king-court-jō-] ‘kingdom’ (Mt 6:13+ [well attested]) as a place
that one can enter into (e.g. Mk 9:47, Lk 18:24), differing from þiudinassus ‘king-
dom’ as the ruling power (§10.4); compounded of þiudan- ‘king’ + gard- ‘house’
(NWG 156; Kotin 1996 ‘royal enclosure’; cf. Karpov 2005b: 202, but see Rübekeil
2010: 279ff.) and translating Gk. basileíā ‘kingdom’, derived from basileús ‘king’
(cf. Karpov 2005a: 47); for Seebold (1968c: 77), þiudangardi is a bahuvrihi, but the
derived meaning is due to the suffix which makes it endocentric (NCG 243f.)
wadja-bokos (f pl -ō-) [pledge-writings] (acc Col 2:14B) ‘record of charges, certificate
of indebtedness’ has been considered a structural calque of Gk. tò . . . kheiró-graphon
(Karpov 2005a: 46) ‘the hand-written (thing/record)’, i.e. ‘promissory note’, but
wadja- (wadi ‘pledge’) is nothing like kheir-o- ‘(by) hand’ (cf. frabauhta-boka ‘sales
document’ and NWG 43)
290 Compounding
waihsta-stains* (m -a-) ‘cornerstone’ (dat sg -staina Eph 2:20B) translates Gk. akro-
gōniaĩos ‘id.’ lit. ‘at the extreme angle’ (§6.7) (Karpov 2005a: 47; cf. NWG 317); the
‘stone’ part of the compound derives from several MSS that add líthou ‘(of) stone’,
as well as several Latin versions with ipsō summō angulārī lapide ‘himself the
highest corner stone’ (Marold 1883: 79)
waurda-jiuka* (f -ō-) [word-battle] ‘argument about words’ (acc pl waurdajiukos
1Tim 6:4A), a literal rendering of Gk. logo-makhíā logomachy (NWG 105; Karpov
2005a: 46)
weina-basi* (n -ja-) [wine-berry] ‘grape’ (nom pl weinabasja Mt 7:16, Lk 6:44)
translates Gk. staphulo ‘bunch of grapes’ (§8.20 end); fruits are neuter (Hüllhorst
1902)
weina-gards* (m -i-) ‘vineyard’ (11x: Mk, Lk only, e.g. acc sg weinagard Mk 12:1, 9, Lk
20:9, 16) renders Gk. ampelon ‘vineyard’ (Grewolds 1934: 153; Karpov 2005a: 47,
2005b: 201); simple compound of wein ‘wine’ and gards ‘enclosure’ (Rübekeil 2010:
273f.); cf. ON víngarðr, OS wīngardo* (e.g. acc sg uuingardon Heliand 3492CM),
OHG wīngarto, OE wīngeard vineyard; Carr (1939: 69f.) claims the Gothic and
Old Norse words are separate creations (ibid. 105), given the alternation in Gmc.
*wīna-gardaz ~ *wīna-gardōn (HGE 467), but Crim. vvingart ‘vine’ (§1.2) suggests
an early compound meaning both ‘vine’ and ‘vineyard’ (Loewe 1902: 5f.)
weina-tains (m -a-) ‘vine-branch’ (Jn 15:4, 6, nom pl weinatainos Jn 15:5) translates
Gk. klẽma ‘branch’ (NWG 59, Karpov 2005a: 48)
weina-triu (n -wa-) [wine-tree] ‘(grape)vine’ (Jn 15:1, 5; dat weinatriwa Jn 15:4, acc pl
weinatriwa 1Cor 9:7A), renders Gk. ámpelos ‘vine’; cf. OE wīn-trēow, ON vín-tré
(Grewolds 1934: 153; Karpov 2005a: 43)
witoda-fasteis (m -ja-) ‘legal expert, lawyer’ (Lk 10:25; nom pl -fastjos Lk 7:30) renders
forms of Gk. nomikós ‘lawyer’ (Karpov 2005a: 47); synchronically endocentric
(NWG 117) even if -fasteis is deverbal ‘one who keeps the law’ or, to *fastjan, ‘who
determines, interprets’ the law (Sturtevant 1937: 178f.)
witoda-laisareis* (m -ja-) ‘law-teacher’ (nom pl witodalaisarjos Lk 5:17, 1Tim 1:7A/B),
part of Hellenistic terminology (Kauffmann 1920: 179) and a literal rendering of
Gk. nomo-didáskalos ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 341; NWG 426f.; Karpov 2005a: 46)
These compounds remained transparent (Karpov 2005a: 38ff.). For instance, fotiwe ‘of
feet’ occurs near fotubaurd ‘footstool’ at Mk 12:36, Lk 20:43; gawaurki ‘commercial
venture, business deal’ occurs in the next verse after faihu-gawaurki (1Tim 6:5A/B)
‘money(making) business’ (Karpov 2005b: 206f., 209), which translates a form of Gk.
porismós ‘a procuring; means of gain’ (Karpov 2005a: 48).
Although posited (VEW 336f.), Gothic has no verb *ga-liugan (cf. liugan* ‘tell a lie’),
and galiuga- is probably not a deverbal constituent. Galiuga-praufetus* coocurs with
liugna-praufetus* ‘false/lying prophet’ (dat pl -praufetum Mt 7:15), which renders
the same Greek compound. Both are calques (Karpov 2005a: 46). Liugn-a- is from
the noun liugn (acc) ‘lie’ (3x, 1 dupl). Also composed with liugn is liugna-waurd*
[lie-word] ‘lie’ (§7.4).
This suggests that galiug-a- is from the noun galiug ‘false (thing), lie’ (cf. Grewolds
1934: 149; NWG 75), the accusative of which is used adverbially, as in ni galiug taujan-
dans waurd gudis (2Cor 4:2A/B) ‘not handling the word of God dishonestly’ for Gk.
mēdè doloũntes ‘not beguiling/falsifying’ (Ambrosini 1969:50).
More interesting is the fact that galiuga-weitwods ‘false witness’ alternates with
galiug + verb: managai auk galiug weitwodidedun ana ina (Mk 14:56) ‘for many testi-
fied lyingly against him’. This is the use of galiug that is relevant to the semantics of
galiuga- compounds, answering Jellinek’s doubts about starting with a noun meaning
‘lie’ (1926: 197); cf. OE lēase Cristas ‘false Christs’ etc. with lēas ‘false; lie’ (Kauffmann
1920: 178).
least predictable in constituent matching (over thirty examples in Wolfe 2011: 620).
Consider the following Gothic examples:
afar-dags* (m -a-) [after-day] ‘the day after’ (in þamma afardaga Lk 7:11 ‘on the next
day’) translates Gk. en tõi (v.l. tẽi) exẽs ‘on the next day’ (exẽs is an adv ‘next’), Vet.
Lat. in sequentī diē (cod. Brix. VL 1976: 73) ‘on the following day’; afar is intransitive
in this compound; contrast the P in afar dagans þrins (Lk 2:46) ‘after three days’
(§6.4; Wilmanns 1896: 542, 568; Huth 1903: 26; NWG 55; LIPP 2.80)
afar-sabbate (gen pl): filu air þis dagis afarsabbate atidd(j)edun (Mk 16:2) ‘very early
on this day of the aftersabbaths they went . . .’; the closest ancient testimony seems
to be pre-Vulg. posterā diē sabbatōrum (cod. Sangallensis) ‘on the next day of the
sabbaths’ (VL 1970: 157), i.e. ‘early Sunday morning’; this is generally accepted
(cf. Huth 1903: 24), but for Streitberg (1912: 326) dagis makes the construction
“unverständlich”. Afar seems to be transitive here ‘after the sabbath’ (cf. Gabelentz
& Löbe 1848: 581, with other conjectures; Johansson 1904: 480) less likely afar is
attributive, as in afar-dags* (Wilmanns 1896: 568)
aglaiti-waurdei (f -n-) ‘vile/obscene language’ (nom sg restored at Eph 5:4B, acc sg
aglaitiwaurdein Col 3:8A/B), a structural calque on Gk. aiskhro-logíā ‘id.’ (Karpov
2005a: 46); since aglaiti* is normally a noun ‘licentiousness’ and aglait- an adj in
aglait-gastalds ‘greedy for dishonest gain’ (§§7.12, 8.8, 8.18), the reason for the form
aglaiti- is unclear; other -waurdei compounds have an adj as first component, e.g.
filu-waurdei* [much-wordness] ‘verbosity’ (dat sg -waurdein Mt 6:7) rendering
Gk. polu-logíā ‘loquacity’; dwala-waurdei (Eph 5:4B) ‘foolish talk’; lausa-waurdei*
‘vain talking, fruitless discussion’ (§8.18) (cf. Velten 1930: 341f., 350; Aston 1958:
26f., 38f.; NWG 303, 304)
ala-mans* [nom pl m] (in allaim ala|mannam Sk 8.2.16f. ‘among the whole general
public’) ‘alle Menschen, das ganze Menschengeschlecht’ (Wilmanns 1896: 533, 556),
‘Gesamtheit der Menschen’ (NWG 44), likely a calque on Gk. pan-ánthrōpos
[all-person] ‘public’ (Snædal 2015a: 85)
anda-launi (n -ja-) [in.return-reward] ‘recompense, return’ (acc sg 2Cor 6:13A/B,
Col 3:24B, 1Tim 5:4A/B), a loan translation of Gk. anti-misthíā ‘recompense’ but
also glosses amoibe (1Tim 5:4) ‘requital, return’ and antapódosis (Col 3:24) ‘repay-
ment’ (Kind 1901: 30f.; NWG 139)
at-aþni* (n -ja-) [at(hand)-year] ‘this/that (current) year’ (gen sg ataþnjis Jn 18:13)
renders Gk. eniautós ‘year’ (NWG 236, w.lit)
faura-filli (n -ja-) [fore-skin] ‘prepuce’ (1Cor 7:19A+) glosses Gk. akrobustíā ‘id.’
(NWG 138), but the formation is more like Lat. prae-putium; for intransitive faura
cf. afar-dags* above and contrast faura-dauri* in §7.15 (Wilmanns 1896: 239, 542ff.)
fidur-ragini* (n -ja-) [four-counsel/decision-ja-] ‘tetrarchy’ (dat sg fidurraginja Lk 3:1
3x); for the Greek genitive absolute using the participle of a denominal verb ‘with X
being tetrarch (tetrarkhoũntos)’, Gothic substitutes a partial lexical calque of the
source noun tetr-árkhēs [four-ruler] ‘one of four rulers, tetrarch’, not as an actor
nominal but a noun designating the position or office (‘in the tetrarchy of ’), not an
7.6 A + N, Num + N, and P + N endocentrics 293
absolute construction (Metlen 1938: 637; pace Werth 1965: 93); the construct is
endocentric because the neuter -ja- stem can derive an entity (here, office/position)
noun, although usually classified as exocentric (NWG 140)
fulla-wit-a (m -n-) [full-knowledge-actor] ‘one who has full knowledge’ (acc sg -witan
Col 1:28A/B = Gk. téleios, nom pl -witans Col 4:12A/B = Gk. peplērophorēménos,
Phil 3:15A/B = Gk. téleios) (Elkin 1954: 402): the two renderings of téleios ‘complete(d),
perfect(ed)’ are less imaginative than the loan translation of peplērophorēménos,
the PPP of plēro-phoréō ‘bear full (knowledge)’; since exocentric compounds have
no overt category suffix (§7.13), and -an- can derive actor nouns, this should be
endocentric rather than a bahuvrihi (pace NWG 244)7
ga-waurstwa (m -n-) [with-worker] ‘fellow worker’ (8x, 5 dupl) = Gk. sunergós,
sunergõn ‘id.’; derived from waurstwa ‘worker’ (§7.19), not a bahuvrihi based on
waurstw ‘work’ (pace Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 58, NWG 242); cf. ga-arbja* (Eph 3:6B)
‘co-heir’, ga-baurgja* (Eph 2:19A/B) ‘fellow citizen’ (NWG 225f.), ga-daila ‘co-sharer,
fellow partaker’ with dat of the person or partitive gen (Streitberg 1912: 333f.), ga-
juka* (2Cor 6:14A/B) [co-yoker] ‘partner’, ga-leika* (Eph 3:6B) ‘(member of the)
same body’, ga-razna* (3x) [co-houser] ‘neighbor’, miþ-ga-sinþa (2Cor 8:19A) ‘co-
traveler’, etc. (Wilmanns 1896: 200f.; Kluge 1911: 97; Seebold 1974; NWG 240–3), but
ga-runs* (3x) [con-flux] ‘marketplace; street’ is exocentric (NWG 176)
midjun-gards* (m -i-) ‘inhabited earth, world’ (sg gen midjungardis Lk 4:5, Rom
10:18A; acc midjungard Lk 2:1, Sk 4.2.10) translates Gk. oikouménē ‘the inhabited
world’; cf. ON miðgarðr ‘the earth’, Dan. midgård, OS middilgard (e.g. dat sg f at
Heliand 524PCM), OHG mitti(n)gard, mittilgart(o), OE middangeard (e.g. acc sg
at Genesis B 395) ‘earth, world’, an old mythological word *medjana-gardaz (HGE
264) modified in Nordic and German, but Gothic and Old English point to
influence of miduma* ‘middle’ (cf. NCG 57, KM 126, NWG 179), originally elative
*meduma- (cf. §3.8 and EDPG 361). In reality, midjun- remains unexplained
(Rübekeil 2010: 275ff.). In pre-Christian tradition, the inhabitable earth was
conceptualized in Germanic cosmology as the ‘middle region’, between the realm
of the gods and the region of darkness (Laird 1940: 50; Ganina 2001: 20ff.). Eng.
midgard first occurs in 1770 and was probably ultimately borrowed from Danish
midgård (OED)
missa-deþs* (f -i-) [mis-deed] ‘transgression, trespass, failing’ (nom sg missadeds
Rom 11:12A) is well attested and translates Gk. paráptōma ‘false step, transgression,
trespass’ and parábasis (1Tim 2:14) ‘deviation, transgression’ (Pausch 1954: 97f.); a
Germanic compound on the evidence of OS missdād* (e.g. nom sg misdad Gen 63),
OHG missitāt, OE misdæd misdeed < *missa-dēdiz (Wilmanns 1896: 554; HGE 272);
cf. the parallel formation Goth. waila-deþs* (gen sg wailadedais 1Tim 6:2A/B,
7 The same holds for formations like in-gard-ja* (m -n-) [in-house-actor] ‘member of the household’
(nom pl ingardjans Eph 2:19A/B, 1Tim 5:8A/B), translating Gk. oikeĩos ‘domestic’, and ib-dal-ja* (m -n-)
[near-valley-entity (see ftn. 8)] ‘descent (from a mountain)’ (dat sg ibdaljin Lk 19:37), rendering Gk.
katábasis ‘id.’. For Casaretto (NWG 267f.) these are bahuvrihis. On laus-handja* ‘empty-hander’, see §7.15.
294 Compounding
gen pl wailadede Bl 1r.23) ‘benefit, good service’, which renders Gk. euergesíā
[well-doing] ‘good deed, benefit’ (NWG 510)
sama-qiss* (f -i-) [same-speech (cf. þiuþi-qiss* §7.7)] ‘agreement, concord’ (gen pl
samaqisse 2Cor 6:15, 16A/B, the first translating Gk. sumphonēsis [together-sounding]
‘agreement, harmony’, the second sugkatáthesis ‘approval, agreement, concord’);
other -qiss compounds include ana-qiss (Col 3:8A/B, 1Tim 6:4A/B) ‘slander, blas-
phemy’, 2ga-qiss* ‘agreement’, missa-qiss ‘discord, dissidence, dissension’, waila-qiss
‘blessing’, etc. (Kind 1901: 19; Velten 1930: 345, 347, 350; Aston 1958: 12; NWG 504)
silba-siuneis* (m -ja-) [self-seeing] ‘eyewitness’ (nom pl -siunjos Lk 1:2) translates Gk.
autóptēs [autós ‘self ’ + opt- ‘see’] ‘id.’ and is formed like the Greek compound; cf.
Goth. silba ‘self ’ + siuns ‘seeing, sight’ (Kind 1901: 28; Velten 1930: 347; Grewolds
1934: 146, 178f.; NWG 119, LCG 219)
silba-wiljis* (m -ja-) [self-will-ja-] ‘motivated (person), volunteer’ (nom pl -wiljos
2Cor 8:3A/B), translating Gk. authaíretos ‘of one’s own accord; voluntary’ (Kind
1901: 28f.; Velten 1930: 347; NWG 120, LCG 219); cf. ON sjálf-vili (m) [self-will]
‘freewill’ = OHG selbwillo, MLG sulfwille, OE selfwill (n) ‘freewill’; as a Christian
term, this compound was not Common Germanic, but the same constituents were
used everywhere; cf. the early German gloss sponte : selpuuillin (NCG 57); the com-
position of Gk. authaíretos [autós ‘self ’ + hairetós ‘chosen’] is paralleled in Gmc.
*selba- + *wel-ja-/-jōn- (cf. HGE 323, 453)
þiuþi-qiss* (f -i-) (gen sg þiuþiqissais 1Cor 10:16A) ‘benediction, blessing’, composed
of þiuþ ‘good’ plus *qiss- (see qiþan in App.) ‘speaking, speech’, a structural calque
on Gk. eu-logíā [good-speaking/speech] (Kind 1901: 19; Velten 1930: 341; Karpov
2005a: 46); since þiuþ ‘good’ is an -a- stem (NWG 93), the juncture -i- of þiuþi- is
unclear and unspecified in NWG 504. Suggestions include vowel harmony (NCG
278), analogy to -j- in þiuþjan* (Sturtevant 1945a: 5f.), a -ja- stem noun *þiuþi under-
lying þiuþjan* ‘bless’ (cf. Seebold 1968c: 91), or, most likely, a -ja- stem adjective
*þeudjaz ‘favorable’ attested in þiuþeig-s ‘good, perfect’ (EDPG 539)
þruts-fill (n -a-) ‘leprosy’ (Mt 8:3+ [6x]): comparable to OE þrust-fell (n) ‘leprosy’
(NCG 66, HGE 428, Karpov 2005b: 202), rendering Gk. léprā ‘leprosy’, derived
from lepís ‘scale, husk’ (GED 366; Karpov 2005a: 47); the category of þruts- is
obscure (GED 366; ignored in EDPG); if indeed a substantivized form of þruts-fills*
‘leprous; leper’ (NWG 315), the adjective (only nom pl m þrutsfillai Mt 11:5, Lk 4:27,
7:22, 17:12) is preferred in Luke and replaceable by þrutsfill habands (Mt 8:2, Mk 1:40)
‘having leprosy’ for Gk. leprós ‘scaly; leprous; leper’ (cf. Gering 1874: 305; Dolcetti
Corazza 1997: 15f.); relatives include OIr. trosc ‘leprous’ (< *trussko- EDPC 391), Eng.
thrush2 ‘disease’ (Liberman 2002)
ufar-gudja* (m -n-) ‘high-priest’ (dat pl ufargudjam Mk 10:33) may be a semantic
extension of a Germanic-type compound (Werth 1973: 264); Gothic seems not to
have distinguished an ‘overpriest’ from a ‘high priest’, although Old Norse yfir covers
that range of meanings; cf. yfir-kennimaðr ‘high priest’, yfir-konungr ‘supreme king’,
yfir-klerkr ‘overclerk’. Middle High German has ober- compounds in this sense
(Wilmanns 1896: 569). Gothic ufar- compounds designating humans are scarce, the
7.7 N + A endocentrics 295
only other example being deverbal ufar-swara* (§7.19); the usual meanings of ufar-
involve ‘location above’, ‘excess’, ‘pride’, ‘beyond’, as in ufar-munnon* ‘forget’
(McLintock 1972), or ‘failure’, and may have made it generally unsuitable for the
‘high priest’ designation (Ratkus 2018a)
undaurni-mats* (acc undaurnimat Lk 14:12) renders Gk. áriston ‘brunch’ (NWG
180f.; cf. Karpov 2005a: 22, 42), which underlies aristáō ‘have breakfast’ (EDG 132;
pace Karpov 2005a: 48); cf. OE undern-mete = Lat. prandium ‘brunch’. These belong
here if undaurn/ern- is ‘(the) inbetween (meal)’ < *ntr-nó/i- (LIPP 2.239)
Another type of A+N endocentric compound occurs in North and West Germanic
with a denominal form such as -ed ‘provided with’ (§8.31), as in OS hurnid-skip
[horned ship] (nom sg Heliand 2266M, acc sg 2907M) ‘beak-prowed vessel’. Carr
(NCG 201) wrongly classifies these as containing a participle as first constituent.
OS neglid-skip* [nailed ship] (acc pl neglitskipu Heliand 1186M ~ neglidscipu
Heliand 1186C) is similar to OE nægled-cnearr (Chron) ‘nail-fastened vessel’
(NCG 201f.).
7.7 N + A endocentrics
This category was represented by some thirty-four examples in early Germanic and
an additional sixty-eight in West Germanic (NCG 162). It became productive in all
branches of North and West Germanic; cf. ON sæ-dauðr [sea-dead] ‘dead at sea’.
Gothic examples:
faihu-friks (adj -a-) ‘money-covetous, greedy’: nom sg m (1Cor 5:11A, Eph 5:5B) ren-
ders Gk. pleon-éktēs [more-having] ‘grasping, greedy’ (cf. Regan 1972: 168–75), ni
faihufriks (1Tim 3:3A/B) = Gk. a-phil-árguron ‘not loving money’, nom pl m -frikai
(Lk 16:14) = Gk. phil-árguroi ‘fond of money, covetous’, acc pl m -frikans (1Tim
3:8A) = Gk. aiskhro-kerdeĩs ‘greedy for gain’ (usually translated aglait-gastalds §7.16),
and dat pl m wk faihufrikam (1Cor 5:10A) = Gk. pleonéktais ‘greedy’. An immedi-
ate relative is ON fé-frekr ‘covetous’, possibly of early Germanic date but nonexistent
in WGmc. (NCG 67, GPA 212f., NWG 287), suggesting that the Gothic forms may
not be calques (pace Velten 1930: 343; LCG 226)
faihu-gairns* (adj -a-) ‘money-craving, avaricious’ (nom pl m faihugairnai 2Tim
3:2A/B) = ON fégjarn ‘covetous, avaricious, greedy’, OE feohgeorn ‘avaricious,
covetous’ < Gmc. *fehu-gernaz (HGE 97); cf. OS fehugiri (acc sg Heliand 2503C)
‘greed’ (NCG 59); faihu-gairns* is supposedly a calque on Gk. phil-árguros ‘fond of
money, covetous’ with the constituents reversed (LCG 226), but the cognates sug-
gest a native form (Patrick Stiles, p.c.; see also -gairns in App.)
frijaþwa-mildeis* (adj -ja-) [love-mild] ‘lovingly/kindly affectionate’ (nom pl m
friaþwa-mildjai Rom 12:10A), a calque on Gk. philó-storgos [lov(ing)-affectionate]
296 Compounding
‘lovingly tender, affectionate’; the Gothic and Greek constituents are not as different
as Casaretto suggests (LCG 227); cf. Gk. stérgō ‘be fond of, love’, storge ‘love, affection’,
nom pl m á-storgoi ‘without natural affection, unloving’ rendered by un-mildjai
(2Tim 3:3A/B) ‘id.’ (hapax) [the order áspondoi, ástorgoi follows cod. Bezae]; Goth.
*mild- is probably a -ja- stem *mildeis (GPA 406f.; cf. NWG 470)
guda-faurhts (adj -a-) ‘God-fearing, devout’ (Lk 2:25) renders Gk. eu-labes [taking
(hold) well] ‘discreet; reverent, pious, devout’, but note Vulg. timōrātus ‘fearing;
devout’ and esp. Vet. Lat. timēns Deum ‘fearing God’ (cod. Usserianus r/14; cf. VL
1976: 21)
gasti-gods (adj -a-) [stranger-good, i.e. good to guests] ‘hospitable’ (1Tim 3:2A/B, Tit
1:8B) renders Gk. philó-xenos [lov(ing)-stranger] ‘hospitable’; cf. the noun gasti-
godei* [guest-goodness] ‘hospitality’, derived from the adjective (GPA 250ff., NWG
289, LCG 226), but corresponding to Gk. philo-xeníā ‘id.’ (Karpov 2005a: 47)
lubja-leis* (adj -a-) [potion-knowing] ‘sorcerous’ is important for the productivity of
these compounds because nom pl m lubjaleisai (2Tim 3:13A) occurs as a margin
gloss of liutai ‘deceitful (ones)’ (imposters, seducers); also important for the
productivity of compound adjectives in deriving nouns is its derivative lubja-leisei
(Gal 5:20A/B) ‘witchcraft, sorcery’ translating Gk. pharmakeíā ‘use of potions,
witchcraft’ (EbgW 44, VEW 323, GPA 370f., NWG 291, Karpov 2005a: 48)
lustu-sams* (adj -a-) ‘longed for, much desired’ (nom pl m wk lustusamans Phil
4:1A/B) = OS lustsam* (acc sg/pl f lustsama Heliand 4712C) ‘joyful’, OHG lustsam
‘desirable, pleasant, charming’ < Gmc. *lustu-saman- ~ *lusta-samaz (HGE 251);
cf. ON lysti-samligr ‘sensual’ (with lysti- from lysta ‘to desire’, lystr ‘desirous’,
etc.), OE lustsumlīc ‘delectable, pleasant’. Synchronically, -sama- is doubtless a
suffix that evolved early from sama- ‘same’. Gothic has only this example but it
became productive in the rest of Gmc. (Wilmanns 1896: 490, NCG 59, KM 227, LHE2 327)
The prefix all- was extremely productive, especially in Nordic, able to be prefixed to
nearly any adjective or adverb as an intensifier (NCG 354ff., KM 28).
7.9 V + N endocentrics
Compounds with a deverbal first constituent seem not to have existed in early
Germanic (cf. NWG 236). Potential examples in Gothic are the following:
298 Compounding
Old High German has a few types from the ninth to the twelfth century, e.g. bachīsen
[bake-iron] ‘baking implement’, blāshorn ‘trumpet’ (NCG 179ff.; cf. KM 29). These
may have originally had a nominal first constituent. Verbal constituents likely
evolved where the noun and verb had the same form. For instance, slāf- in OHG
slāfsucht [sleep-quest] is nominal but verbal in the later slāfhūs [c11] ‘sleep-house’
(NCG 183).
Several genuine verbal examples are attested early in Old High German and Old
English: OHG brennīsarn [burn-iron] = OE bærnīsen ‘branding iron’ (Wilmanns
1896: 537; NCG 119, 175, 178, 190, KM 28).
(1) a) N b) A
N N A N
[individ] -ed
A N A N
red head red head
In (1b) red merges with head and that unit in turn merges with -ed (which makes the
compound endocentric). In the more abstract (1a) the merged unit redhead is attracted
by an abstract individual noun head, which yields a person or thing interpretation.
Metonymy cannot explain the consistent individual interpretation (pace Lieber 2009a).
Crucially, individual is not stipulated because a redhead cannot be an event or state.8
There are supposedly no attested examples of bahuvrihis of the category noun that
could plausibly date to Proto-Germanic. Carr (NCG 161, 164–70) claims that they
must have existed because adjectival bahuvrihis presuppose them. However, on the-
oretical grounds, it is no longer necessary to assume that an overt nominal bahuvrihi
was the basis of a corresponding adjective. The structure would simply be as in (1b)
above except that the adjective (A) head would be phonologically null, containing
only a possessive feature. In comparative perspective, it is of interest that the Indo-
Iranian bahuvrihis were also of the category adjective.
A few examples of early nominal bahuvrihis and other so-called ‘exocentric’ types
can be cited from individual languages. As implied in §7.13, constituents can be of any
lexical category, including numeral, preposition, and particle (Dolcetti Corazza 1997).
For -an- stems alone in the last category Casaretto lists 9 examples with ga- (in the
sense of ‘with, together’), 3 with us-, 1 with anda-, and 2 with neg un- (NWG 240–5);
for -ein- stems, 11 examples with P-word (particle, preposition) prefix are listed (NWG
298–304). And so on.
Of likely Proto-Germanic date are adjectival bahuvrihis with numeral, adjective, or
noun as the first member (NCG 161). Carr (NCG 162) counts sixteen in early Germanic
and forty-four in West Germanic. In the individual Germanic languages, these tended
to be modified by addition of an adjective or past participle suffix, thus diminishing
their productivity since the notion of ‘having, possessing’ came to be expressed by an
overt (endocentric) formative (NCG 165).
This replacement began in Old English, e.g. ān-ēagede ‘one-eyed’ beside ān-ēage ‘id.’
(KM 34). OE heardheort was transformed into hardhearted (NCG 94, HGE 162). It
corresponds to the Greek calque Goth. *hardu-hairts (in harduhairtei* ‘hardheartedness’
[Gk. sklēro-kardíā]: acc sg -hairtein Mk 10:5, 16:14S (Velten 1930: 346; LCG 229; possibly
native Germanic: Kind 1901: 31f.). OE hēahheort ‘proud’ was remade to high-hearted.
It corresponds to the calque Goth. hauh-hairts ‘high-hearted, arrogant, proud’ (Tit 1:7B,
8 According to the classification of Levinson (2007: 22f.), things or entities are subsumed under predi-
cates of individuals, encompassing individuals and entities, in contrast to events and states which are
subclasses of eventualities.
300 Compounding
9 The obscure bilaif in the calendar (gaminþi marwtre þize bi Werekan papan jah Batwin | bilaif Cal 1.7
‘the memory of those martyrs with Wereka the priest and Batwins?’) has been variously interpreted as a
verb (3sg pret of *bi-leiban ‘leave’: Ebbinghaus 1978; GED 70; Lühr 2000a: 145; Snædal), i.e. ‘[no one]
remained’; as a noun backformed to bilaibjan* ‘leave (behind)’ (MUN 98; cf. NWG 90), and as a formation
parallel to gahlaiba*, viz. *bi-hlaib- ‘companion’ (Schmeja 1998).
302 Compounding
Karpov 2005a: 49); probably an old poetic or religious term endowed with new
meaning by rapport to Gk. kósmos (Ambrosini 1958: 225ff.); in John (but not the
Epistles), as Kauffmann (1923: 36–41) noted, manaseþs renders kósmos as ‘world of
people, mankind’ while fair us renders kósmos as ‘created world, world of living
beings; earthly world’ (Francini 2009: 93–6; cf. Laird 1940: 52f.)
twis-stass* (f -i-) [in.two-standing] ‘dissension, sedition’ (nom pl twisstasseis Gal
5:20B ~ twistasseis Gal 5:20A) bears a striking resemblance to Gk. dikho-stasíā ‘id.’,
derived from díkha ‘in two, apart, asunder’ (Velten 1930: 500; NWG 511f.)
af-guþs* (adj -a-) [away.from-god] ‘irreligious’ (dat pl m afgudaim 1Tim 1:9A, a mar-
gin gloss of unsibjaim ‘ungodly, iniquitous’ [see sibja in App.], acc sg f wk afgudon
Sk 4.4.18, nom sg m wk sa | afguda farao Bl 2v.19f. ‘the ungodly pharaoh’): Gk.
a-sebes [without-reverence] ‘unholy, ungodly’, is a possible (imprecise) model
(LCG 229), but á-theos ‘ungodly, godless’ is a better source (Campanile 1970b: 186;
Scardigli 1973: 128); cf. af- in (acc) af-grundiþa (Lk 8:31, Rom 10:7A) ‘the deep,
abyss’ with Gk. á-bussos ‘id.’ (Weinhold 1870: 15; EWDS 6; NWG 472). Cognate
WFlem af-god ‘godless person’, OS af-god*, OHG ab-god ‘idol’ (GED 4) suggest a
PGmc. word (Patrick Stiles, p.c.)
aglait-gastalds (adj -a-) [shameful-gain] ‘greedy for dishonest gain’ (Tit 1:7B; nom pl
m aglaitgastaldans 1Tim 3:8A) is a loan translation of Gk. aiskhro-kerdes [shameful-
gain, disgraceful-profit] ‘sordidly greedy of gain’ (Kind 1901: 23f.; Velten 1930: 341;
LCG 228; Snædal 2015a: 79)
ahtau-dogs (Phil 3:5A/B) ‘eight days (old)’, fidur-dogs (adj -a-) (Jn 11:39) ‘four days
(dead)’ (OE fēower-dōgor ‘of four days’ NCG 64); cf. ON dǿgr ‘half day’, OE dœg
‘day’ < Gmc. *-dōg-iz- (-s- stem substantivization of -i- stem *dōg-i- ‘pertaining to
the day’ [cf. Harðarson 2014b: 50; Rau 2014] like *hōn-i-z- [OHG huon] ‘fowl’ to
*han-an- = Goth. hana §8.21 ‘rooster’); -dogs is prob not a collective -s- stem (Thöny
2018) or neuter *dōgi- (Darms 1978: 177–91), but an -i- stem vrddhi adj (so
Harðarson), although an -a- stem is traditionally assumed (KM 22, EDPG 87)
*aina-munds (adj -a-) [one-mind] ‘unanimous’ underlies aina-mundiþa ‘unanimity,
unity’ (Schubert 1968: 50; Weber 1991: 266; Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 18; NWG 473)
ain-falþs (adj -a-) [having one fold] ‘single, simple, whole’ (nom sg m Mt 6:22 ‘sound,
healthy’ = Gk. haploũs ‘single, simple, sincere’) = ON einfaldr ‘simple, single, plain,
common, silly’, OS ēnfald (Heliand 1057CM+) ‘simple, undivided, pure, honest,
straight, mere’, OHG einfalt ‘pure, single’, OE ānfeald ‘simple, single, one, alone’
< Gmc. *ain(a)-falþ/daz (cf. Velten 1930: 490; NCG 64, 277; GPA 187f.; Dolcetti
Corazza 1997: 18f.; HGE 8; NWG 287; Kiparsky 2010; see manag-falþs* below)
alja-kuns (adj -i-) [other-kin(d)] renders several compounds and phrases: nom sg
m alja-kuns Rom 11:24A (Gk. parà phúsin) ‘contrary to nature’, nom sg m wk
alja-kunja Lk 17:18 (Gk. ho allogenes hoũtos) ‘this foreigner’, nom pl m alja-konjai
7.12 Adjectival exocentrics (bahuvrihis) 303
Eph 2:19A/B (Gk. pároikoi) ‘outsiders’; Gk. allo-genes (NT) ‘of another race; stran-
ger’ and Goth. alja-kuns were likely coined as antonyms to sug-genes, sama-kuns
(below)
ana-haims* (adj -i-) [in-village, upon-land] ‘at home, present’ (nom pl m -haimjai
2Cor 5:9A/B, dat pl m -haimjaim 2Cor 5:8A/B), perhaps modeled after Gk.
én-dēmos ‘dwelling in a place, native; belonging to a people’ (LCG 233), derived
from dẽmos ‘country, land; people’; the Greek text uses the verb en-dēmeĩn ‘live in a
place’, which the Latin renders with praesēns ‘(being) present’; Goth. haims* ‘village;
lands’ is semantically consistent with Gk. dẽmos (see haim-oþli* §7.4)
arma-hairts* (adj -a-) ‘tenderhearted, merciful, compassionate’ (nom pl m -hairtai Eph
4:32A/B) underlies armahairtei ‘compassion, pity’ and armahairtiþa ‘mercy,
charitable deed’; cf. OHG armherz, OE earmheort—all modeled on Lat. misericors
‘merciful’, misericordia ‘mercy’ (Marold 1881a: 171; Kind 1901: 32; GGS 190; Corazza
1969: 80f.; NWG 300, 473; LCG 219, 229; Francovich Onesti 2011: 202; Snædal 2015a:
79; Falluomini 2018: §1); the main counterhypothesis is that arma- was (de)verbal and
the formation built on existing x-herta- models as a translation of Gk. eú-splagkhnos
[with good bowels] ‘compassionate’ (Beck 1979)
fidur-falþs* (adj -a-) ‘fourfold’ (acc sg n fidurfalþ Lk 19:8)
ga-skohs* (adj -a-) ‘having shoes, shod’ (nom pl m gaskohai Mk 6:9, Eph 6:15A/B)
derived from skohs* ‘shoe, sandal’; a productive type in PGmc. (McLintock 1969: 8);
cf. OE gefeax (Bede 96.11), OHG gifahs ‘with hair’, to *fahs hair (of the head), mane’,
etc. (Patrick Stiles, p.c.); see ga-skohi ‘pair of shoes’ (§8.18)
hindar-weis* (adj -a-) [behind-wise] ‘deceitful’ (nom pl m -weisai 2Cor 11:13B) and its
nominal derivative hindarweisei* (f -n-) ‘deceit, guile, trickery’ (dat sg -weisein
2Cor 12:16A/B), the former rendering Gk. dólios ‘crafty, deceitful’, the latter dólos
‘trick, guile’ (GPA 664f., NWG 298); for the sense of hindar-, cf. Germ. hinter in
hinterhältig ‘underhanded, devious’ (Patrick Stiles, p.c.)
hrainja-hairts* (adj -a-) [clean-heart] ‘of pure heart’: audagai . . . | . . . þai hrain|jahairtans
(Sk 6.4.20ff., a citation of Mt 5:8) ‘blessed [are] the clean-hearted’ translates
makárioi hoi katharoì tẽi kardíāi (Mt 5:8) ‘blessed are the clean in heart’ (LCG 229).
Although Gk. katharokárdios ‘clean-hearted’ is not attested until ca. 800, one can-
not exclude its earlier existence as a model for the Gothic compound (Snædal
2015a: 77ff.); since ON hreinhjartaðr ‘pure of heart’ (only in Gospel translations)
and OHG reinherzi (Ngl. 171.24) ‘pure-hearted’ are suffixed and not directly com-
parable (Snædal 2015a: 79), these must be Christian terms based on separate loan
translations (NCG 93, 385; pace HGE 183)
in-witoþs [so the reading of MS A: Snædal 2013a: i. 38] (adj -a-) [in-law] ‘subject to
the law’ (nom sg m 1Cor 9:21A), calqued on Gk. én-nomos [in-law] ‘within the law;
lawful, legal’, NT ‘subject to the law’ (Velten 1930: 340; LCG 230)
*lagga-moþs (adj -a-) (in the noun laggamodei* ‘long-suffering, patience’); cf. OHG
langmuot, MLG langmōdich, OE longmōd ‘patient, long-suffering’; the Gothic word
is a loan translation of Gk. makro-thūmíā (Velten 1930: 346; NWG 301), and the
West Germanic forms are calques on Lat. long-animus (NCG 94, 385, HGE 235)
304 Compounding
lausa-waurds* (adj -a-) [loose-word] ‘speaking empty words, talking idly’ (nom pl m
lausawaurdai Tit 1:10A/B), a loan translation of Gk. mataio-lógos ‘id.’ (Seebold
1968c: 77; NWG 141; LCG 224, 230; Snædal 2015a: 79) but internally motivated
(Benveniste 1961: 33f.) = ON lausorðr ‘prattling with empty words, unreal in one’s
words’ < Gmc. *lausa-wordaz (HGE 239 -wurdaz) or parallel formations; cf. OS
neuter lōsword* (acc pl losuuord Heliand 3469C) ‘invective’ (NCG 94)
laus-qiþrs* (adj -a-) [empty-stomach] ‘fasting’ (acc pl m -qiþrans Mk 8:3) glosses Gk.
nẽstis ‘not eating; fasting’; cf. the derived noun laus-qiþr-ei* [empty-stomach-ness]
‘fasting, hunger’ (Seebold 1968a: 5; Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 28f.; NWG 301)
manag-falþs* (adj -a-) [many-fold] ‘manifold, multiple’ (acc sg n managfalþ Lk 18:30
= Gk. polla-plásios ‘many times more’, nom sg f wk managfalþo Eph 3:10B = Gk.
polu-poíkilos ‘much-variegated, manifold’) = ON margfaldr ‘manifold’ (modified
from *mang-?), OS managfald (Heliand 1345VCM+) ‘id.’, OHG managfalt ‘fre-
quent, multiple’, OE manigfeald ‘manifold, varied’ < Gmc. *managa-faldaz (NCG
66, HGE 259), supposedly with loss of the composition vowel on a polysyllabic
stem (NCG 277), but -falþs compounds drop the composition vowel (Seebold
1968c: 76)
sama-fraþjis* (adj -ja-) [same-mind] ‘of the same mind’ (nom pl m -fraþjai Phil 2:2B):
many Greek MSS have tò autò phronoũntes ‘thinking the same’ (cf. Lat. idipsum
sentientēs ‘thinking the very same thing’) instead of tò hèn phronoũntes [thinking
the one]. Gothic could have used *aina-munds ‘unanimous’ (above) for a Vorlage
with hén, but Gothic has a phrase samo fraþjaima (Phil 3:16A/B) ‘(that) we think
the same’ (§1.6), from which sama-fraþj- is derived, and the adjective for a Greek
participle is parallel to adjacent sama-saiwalai below (Ratkus 2016: 46f.)
sama-kuns* (adj -i-) [same-kin(d)] ‘blood relative, kinsman’ (acc pl m samakunjans
Rom 9:3A), coined after Gk. sug-genes (Pindar+) ‘of the same kin, congenital;
kinsman’ (LCG 232); cf. the parallel ON samkynja ‘of the same family’ (NCG 95)
sama-lauþs* (adj -a-) [same-proportion] ‘equivalent, as much’ (acc sg n samalaud
Lk 6:34); for this and other -lauþs constructs see Benveniste (1961: 28–31)
sama-saiwals* (adj -a-) [same soul] (nom pl m -saiwalai Phil 2:2B) ‘of the same mind,
unanimous’ may be calqued on Gk. súm-psūkhoi [together-soul] ‘of one mind, at
unity’ (LCG 229, Snædal 2015a: 79), but the choice of sama- was likely influenced
by sama-fraþjai (implied by Toporova 1989: 69?), counter to the usual assumption
that the sama- of sama-saiwalai influenced that of sama-fraþjai (LCG 230f.)
ubil-waurds (adj -a-) [evil-word] ‘evil-tongued, maligning, slanderous’ (nom sg m
1Cor 5:11A); cf. Lat. maledicus ‘evil-speaking’ (Velten 1930: 350) = OE yfelwyrde
[1x c11] ‘evil-speaking’ (NCG 94, 277), or Gk. kako-log- (Toporova 1989: 70; Dolcetti
Corazza 1997: 34)
uf-aiþs* (adj -i-) [under-oath] (nom pl m ufaiþjai Neh 6:18) ‘bound by oath; sworn’
for Gk. én-orkos [in-oath] ‘id.’ (Laird 1940: 149; not in NWG 452)
uf-wairs* (adj -a-) [under-man (wair)] ‘married’ (nom sg f ufwaira qens Rom 7:2A),
a calque on Gk. húp-andros [under-man] ‘subject to a man, married’ (Kind 1901: 28;
Velten 1930: 349; Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 64; LCG 230)
7.13 Synthetic compounds 305
*us-stiurs (adj -i-) or *us-stiureis (adj -ja-) [out.of-control] in adv usstiuriba (Lk 15:13)
‘recklessly, wildly, without restraint’, renders Gk. asotōs ‘with abandon, profligacy’
and forms the basis of usstiurei (Eph 5:18A, gen usstiureins Tit 1:6B) ‘loss of control,
self-indulgence, depravity’ (EbgW 47; Seebold 1968a: 6; NWG 302)
Lk 8:1). If these are in fact compounds (denied by Seebold 1968c: 89), both are ad hoc
loan renditions modeled on Gk. eu-aggelízesthai ‘(announce) good tidings’ (NCG 384;
Casaretto 2014: 48). The adverb waila ‘well’ and the noun þiuþ (n -a-) ‘good (thing)’
(NWG 93) would simply occur in their surface form in these constructs.10 The
more usual calques are waila-merjan ‘preach the good news, evangelize’ (Lk 1:19+
[13x, 1 dupl]) and waja-merjan ‘slander, blaspheme’ (1Tim 1:20A/B+ [10x, 3 dupl])
(Velten 1930: 492).
The main synthetic compounds in Germanic, none dating to the protolanguage, con-
tain an active *-nd- participle or a past passive participle (fourth principal part). The
following examples have the latter. In the first two, the satellite is adverbial. In the
third, it is instrumental, and in the fourth and fifth, source or location.
goda-kunds [good(ly)-born] ‘of good parentage’ (Lk 19:12) = Gk. eu-genes [well-born]
‘of high descent, noble’; cf. alja-kuns (Rom 11:24A+) = allo-genes [other-born] ‘for-
eign’, etc. (Velten 1930: 345; LCG 226; cf. Wilmanns 1896: 550)
niuja-satiþs* [new(ly)-set/planted] ‘recently converted’ (acc sg m -satidana 1Tim 3:6)
is a calque on Gk. neó-phutos [new(ly)-planted] ‘recent convert, neophyte’ (Velten
1930: 340; LCG 221, 227)
handu-waurhts* ‘hand-made, hand-done’ (nom sg n handuwaurht, Eph 2:11A/B, acc
sg f wk handuwaurhton Mk 14:58), formed like Gk. kheiro-poíētos ‘made by hand’,
and un-handu-waurhts* ‘not made by hand’ (acc pl m unhanduwaurhtana 2Cor
5:1A/B, acc sg f -waurhta Mk 14:58), like Gk. a-kheiro-poíētos ‘unhandmade’;
handuwaurhts* = OE handworht handwrought, also in Mk 14:58 and constructed
like Gk. kheiropoíētos or influenced by Lat. manū factus ‘made by hand’ (Kind 1901:
24; Velten 1930: 349; NCG 206, 385; KM 27; HGE 159; LCG 223, 228)
airþa-kunds* ‘earth-born; of earthly descent’ (airþakunda|na Sk 4.3.5f.) = OE eorþ-
cund ‘earthly, terrestrial’ < late (?) Gmc. *erþa-kundaz ‘earth-born’; cf. Lat. terrige-
nus or the noun terrigena (NCG 88, LCG 226); for Gothic, cf. Gk. gēgenes ‘id.’
(Snædal 2015a: 85). Possibly pre-Wulfilian, if OE eorþcund, heofoncund ‘heaven-
born’ (see next) are not independent (Wilmanns 1896: 550; Grienberger 1900: 15;
Kauffmann 1920: 174). Gmc. *kunda- ‘born’ < *kun-þá- = Gk. gnētós, Lat. (g)nātus
‘born’ < *gnh1-tó- [*genh1- ‘beget’] (KM 227f., MUN 251, HGE 85, EDPG 310,
LHE2 101)
himinakunds* (himinakunda|na Sk 4.3.2f.) ‘of heaven’ = Gk. ouránios ‘heavenly, of
heaven, (dwelling) in heaven’ (Cahen 1925); for ufar-himina-kunds* see §6.45.
10 Þiuþ is frequently used as object of a verb, e.g. þiuþ taujan ‘do good’; goþ is never used thus, but
occurs in expressions like goþ ist ‘it is good’, where þiuþ is never found (Sturtevant 1937: 176f.).
7.14 Synthetic compounds and thematic roles 307
Gumakunds* (Lk 2:23, Gal 3:28A) ‘male’ and qinakunds* (1x) ‘female’ appear simi-
lar but the satellite has a paral thematic role. These formations are apparently based on
the (non-Biblical) Gk. arsenogenes (rare) and thēlugenes, lit. ‘male-born’, ‘female-born’
(Snædal 2015a: 86). With gumakund jah qinakund (Gal 3:28A) ‘male and female’,
cf. gumein jah qinein (Mk 10:6) ‘id.’ (§8.30).
Passive hafts* ‘taken, bound’ occurs in þaim liugom haftam (1Cor 7:10A) ‘those
bound by marriage’ and in two compounds: auda-hafts* [blessedness-taken] ‘blessed’
(nom sg f audahafta Lk 1:28) and, with qiþus* ‘belly, womb’, in the nominalized com-
pound qiþu-haft-o* (f -n-) [womb-held-f] ‘pregnant woman’ (acc sg -on 1Thess 5:3B,
dat pl -om Mk 13:17). With qiþu-haft- cf. OHG (kindes) haft ‘pregnant’ and the haft
compounds in the history of German, e.g. OHG hanthaft [taken in hand] ‘sold into
slavery’ (Wilmanns 1896: 497f.). Although qiþu-haft- renders Gk. en gastrì ékhousa
‘having in the belly’ (Lichtenheld 1875: 19; NWG 246), it is a native compound type
because it is stative rather than passive like hafts* (Benveniste 1961: 31f.).
The passive adjective fulla-tojis [full(y)-made] ‘perfectly made, perfect’ belongs
here. Both occurrences are in the same passage in (3).
(3) sijaiþ nu jūs fullatojai, swaswe atta izwar sa in himinam fullatojis ist (Mt 5:48)
‘be ye then perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect’
[Gk. ésesthe oũn hūmeĩs téleioi, h sper ho pater hūmõn ho en toĩs ouranoĩs
téleiós estin]
11 Actor nominals and agentives are sometimes referred to as ‘participant’ nouns to cover more of their
semantic roles (Alexiadou 2014). This term is no better for location, instrument, etc.
308 Compounding
-an-
ala-þarb-a (m -n-) (Lk 15:14) ‘all-needing, one who needs everything; entirely destitute’
alla-waurstw-a* (m -n-) ‘one who effects or fulfills everything’ (not in NWG): nom pl
ei standaiþ allawaurstwans jah fullawitans Col 4:12A/B) ‘that you may stand as
12 The tradition (e.g. Wilmanns 1896: 521) realized the relationship but regarded the first member of
these compounds as having an accusative case form rather than a bare stem.
7.15 Synthetic compounds with agentive *-an- and *-jan- 309
-jan-
arbi-numja [inheritance-taker] ‘heir’ (Mk 12:7, Lk 20:14, Gal 4:1A), based on Gk.
klēro-nómos [lot-custom/law] ‘id.’ (Kind 1901: 27; Velten 1930: 342; Grewolds 1934:
146; Karpov 2005a: 46); cf. ONorth. earfednyma (Lk 20:14 Lindisf.); a plain -an-
stem elsewhere: OHG erb/pinomo ‘id.’, OE yrfenuma ‘id.’ (NCG 43f., 216f., 332, 380;
NWG 254); in early times estate division was by lot (Pausch 1954: 58ff.)
dulga-haitja* [debt-caller] ‘creditor’ (dat sg dulga-haitjin Lk 7:41), a nonstructural
rendering of Gk. daneistes ‘money-lender’, derived from daneízō ‘lend money (at
usury)’ (Karpov 2005a: 43, 48); a denominal derivative to an unattested *dulgahait
‘debt call’ is less likely (pace NWG 258)
mana-maurþrja (Jn 8:44) ‘man-slayer’ renders Gk. anthrōpo-któnos ‘id.’ (Kind 1901:
22; Pausch 1954: 113; Karpov 2005a: 46), not anthrōpó-ktonos ‘furnished by slaugh-
tered men’ (pace NWG 260); cf. mannans maurþrjandam (1Tim 1:9B) ‘for those
killing (who kill) people’ (Gk. androphónois ‘murderers of males’) (Snædal 2015a:
87); there is no need to take maurþrja as a deverbal backformation to maurþrjan*
‘kill’ (pace NWG 260)13
wein-drugkja (Lk 7:34) ‘wine-drinker, wine addict, drunkard’ (NCG 277; Karpov
2005b: 202) is modeled on Gk. oino-pótēs ‘id.’ (Grewolds 1934: 145; Karpov 2005a:
46) but supposedly has an oblique case wein- (NCG 277) because of its derivation
from (*)wein drigkan [cf. drigkan wein Mk 15:23] (Wrede 1891: 188); it is more likely
the bare stem; cf. OHG wīntrincho [Tatian] ‘drinker of wine’ with a different second
constituent (NCG 70f.)
laus-handja* (m -jan- NWG 267f. or (?) adj -jan- Snædal 2013a: ii. 322) ‘empty-hander’
(1x acc sg): nimandans ina usbluggwun jah insandidedun laushandjan (Mk 12:3)
‘seizing him, they beat and sent away the empty-hander’. Often classified as a bahu-
vrihi (Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 28; substantivized *laushandeis ‘empty-handed’ NWG
267f., or Leerhändigen Schaffner 2005: 308), a weak adjective (e.g. Snædal) is diffi-
cult to motivate (Ratkus 2018b). For Ratkus, it is an actor nominal, more precise
than Gk. apésteilan kenón ‘they sent (him) away empty’, Vet. Lat. vacuum / inānem
‘empty’, or the Luke translator: ina insandidedun lausana (Lk 20:10, 11) ‘sent him
away empty’. For the novelty of the formation, Ratkus compares the nearby ufar-
gudjam (Mk 10:33) ‘high-priests’ (§7.6)
The different thematic roles a suffix can license (§7.14) are missed by Cluver
(1969: 122f.), who misguidedly unites the different meanings of -jan- derivatives,
even denying the agentive role and the difference between denominal and deverbal
derivation.
Actor nominals often lack the juncture vowel, but quantification is impossible
because the examples are too sparse (Seebold 1968c: 79).
(Miller 2014b: 14f.), and (ii) morphologists recognize at least two other possibilites, substitutive morphology
and the haplological constraint. For substitutive morphology, cf. Lat. liqu-id-us ‘liquid’, liqu-ē-re ‘be liquid’,
liqu-ā-re ‘make liquid’ (LSDE 16; Indo-Europeanists continue to use the term Caland formation). For
the haplological constraint cf. Eng. sheepish but *fishish, *rubbishish; shortage but *largeage; etc. (Miller
2014b: 31, w. lit). Either or both could be operative in the current example. The instrument noun Gmc.
*mur-þra- (Goth. maurþr) ‘murder’ can underlie the verb maurþrjan* ‘commit murder’ and the actor
nominal *murþr-jan- (cf. EDPG 378, LHE2 325) by substitutive morphology, or the haplological constraint
could filter out *murþr-ja-jan- in favor of substitutive morphology.
7.17 Dvandva and identificational compounds 311
Active participles with noun complement in a compound are common in North and
West Germanic. The participle can have adjectival or nominal inflection, the latter in
its function as an agentive. These are morphological replacements of the archaic and
opaque actor nominals in *-(j)an-.
A few synthetic compounds with active or passive participle attested in two or
more Germanic languages follow.
all-waldands (m -nd-) [all-ruling] (2Cor 6:18A/B, Bl 2r.8) ‘all-ruler, the Almighty’: all-
is supposedly an oblique case form (NCG 277) but is more likely a bare stem vs. OS
alouualdand (Heliand 998PM) (NCG 300), OHG al(a)waltenti, OE ea(l)lwealdend
‘ruler of all’; cf. ON alls-valdandi ‘id.’ (NCG 209f.), probably independent calques
on Lat. omni-potēns ‘all-powerful’ or Gk. panto-krátōr ‘all-ruler’ rather than going
back to Gmc. *al(l)(a)-walda/end- (HGE 16), which is likely an enlargement of
the pre-Christian *al(l)a-waldaz in ON all(s)-valdr ‘sovereign, king’ etc. (NCG 57;
Seebold 1968c: 79; NWG 441; FT 146f.)
garda-waldands (m -nd-) [house-ruler] (Lk 14:21, acc sg gardawaldand Mt 10:25)
‘owner/master of the house’ renders Gk. oiko-despótēs ‘house-master’ (Velten 1930:
345; NWG 441); gard-a- can be a syntagma consisting of dat sg with waldan ‘wield
power over, rule’ (Seebold 1968c: 78), an -a- stem (Rübekeil 2010: 278f.), or, since
gards ‘house’ is an -i- stem (NWG 179, Brosman 2007: 226), it can represent spread
of the juncture vowel -a-; with waldands, this is a recently productive type, possibly
modeled on the isolated (in Gothic and Germanic: NWG 246) heiwa-frauja* with
the same meaning and rendering the same Greek word (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 218;
Kind 1901: 13). These terms have prompted speculation that socially heiwafrauja* is
in charge of hospitality, garda-waldands the authority figure (Rousseau 2012: 285f.),
but heiwafrauja* is a precise calque (§7.4)
ON víndrukkinn ‘drunk on wine’ = OHG [c10 glosses] wīntrunchan, OE wīndruncen
winedrunk (NCG 90, 206) < NWGmc. *wīna-drunke/anaz (HGE 466);
Gothic has a corresponding active formation wein-drugkja (m -n-) ‘wine-drinker’
(§7.15)
(5) X
cnj cnj
X1 X2 X3 … Xn
One test for a dvandva (Sanskrit ‘pair’) is that all constituents must belong to the same
lexical-syntactic category: N+N cat-dog, A+A grey-blue [1834] / gray-blue [1884],
V+V stop-go [1918]. No mixed categories are admitted (*red-go *cat-go). This is true
of syntactic coordination (*I saw a cat and go), but not of other compound types
which regularly feature mixed categories.
Identificational compounds (Miller 2014b: 59f.) are also multiple-headed intern-
ally. They differ from dvandvas in that (i) the constituents are not coordinated, and (ii)
the constituents are coextensional. A toy gun [1880] is both a toy which is a type of gun
and a gun which is a type of toy. Contrast a typical dvandva: sea-land is ‘both sea and
land’; it is precisely not ‘sea which is land and land which is sea’.
One reason early Germanic supposedly had no dvandvas is that some apparent
examples are endocentric (NCG 40ff., 161f.). However, dvandvas are reanalyzable as
endocentric (Miller 2014b: 56f.). One archaic dvandva is OE græghæwe ‘gray-blue’
(not recorded by Carr). A second reason is that two Greek dvandvas are translated
by Gothic phrases. One is nukhthemeron ‘night and day’ (Goth. naht jah dag §9.2,
ftn. 2). The other is Gk. kōmopóleis, rendered haimom* <haimon> jah baurgim
(Mk 1:38) ‘to the villages and cities’ (Grewolds 1934: 175), but identical Greek and
Latin phrasal variants occur (Campanile 1975: 128). Even if there were no possible
models, this shows only that this particular kind of dvandva may not have been
natural in Gothic.
One thing that makes early compounds difficult to classify is the uncertainty of the
meaning of the constituents. Consider the following examples:
naudi-bandi* (f -jō-) ‘chain’ (pl gen -bandjo 2Tim 1:16A/B, dat -bandjom Mk 5:3, 4,
acc -bandjos Mk 5:4) renders Gk. hálusis ‘chain’ and is twice reinforced by eisar-
neins* ‘iron’ (Harðarson 2014a) in the only occurrences of this word (Mk 5:3, 4);
cf. eisarna-bandi* (dat pl eisarna-bandjom Lk 8:29) ‘iron chain’, a more precise
rendering of Gk. hálusis (Odefey 1908: 75, 117; Grewolds 1934: 155; Ratkus 2016:
48f.; cf. Karpov 2005a: 49) that insists on the unbreakability (Ambrosini 1958: 230f.),
or is an intrusion from Psalm 149:8 or a homily (Zatočil 1964: 89f., w. lit); cf. kuna-
wida* (f -ō-) (dat pl -widom Eph 6:20B) ‘chain, fetter’, the formation of which is
unfortunately obscure (NWG 99; sometimes interpreted as ‘royal/king(ly) chain’
7.19 Identificational/appositional compounds 313
HGE 223; Rousseau 2012: 278); naudi-bandi* is evidently old; cf. MLG nōtbende
‘fettering’, OF nēdbende ‘id.’, OHG nōtbentig (Tatian) ‘captive’ (NCG 45, 331)
naudi-þaurfts (f -i-) ‘necessity’: naudi|þaurfts auk was (Sk 2.3.22f.) ‘for it was a necessity’;
acc naudiþaurft nu man bidjan broþruns (2Cor 9:5A/B) ‘I think (it) a necessity
to exhort the brethren’ (cf. the epistolary aorist (Kapteijn 1911: 321) in Gk.
anagkaĩon . . . hēgēsámēn ‘I thought it compulsory’) = OS nōdthurft* (e.g. acc sg
nodthur Glosses of the Essen Gospel 50.4) ‘urgent need, neediness’, OHG nōtdur(u)ft
‘id.’, OE nīedðearf ‘id.’ (NCG 331, 381f.) < Gmc. *naudi-þurftiz [force/compulsion
(and) necessity] (HGE 282), but OE ðearf has a different suffix and root vocalism
(KM 26); another hypothesis is that the first constituent (naudi- etc.) bears an
instrumental relationship ‘aus Not bedürfen’ (EWDS 656, NWG 508)
If the literal meaning of naudibandi* is ‘fetter-bond’ (NCG 45, w. lit), then it belongs
here, but ‘compulsion-bond’ is also possible, in which case it may be endocentric,
especially if the relationship of the satellite was instrumental ‘(a) bond with/by force/
constraint’.
The following example is generally classified as endocentric:
If the meaning of the compound involves the intersection of ‘will’ and ‘inclination’,
then it belongs here.
14 The Byzantine main text has katà prósklēsin ‘by judicial summons’, which for semantic reasons must
be a late spelling for prósklisin in the Alexandrian version, assumed by the Vulgate: in alteram partem
dēclīnandō ‘by inclining toward one of two parties’. As to prosōpo-lēmpsíā, in all lexicons (including TLG 1533)
the only lemma is prosōpo-lēpsíā even though the -m- is recognized in late texts, as also in lẽmpsis for lẽpsis
‘a taking, accepting, seizing, seizure’ (DELG 616). Karpov (2005a: 46) miscites the form as *prosōpo-lēmphía,
and does not mention that wiljahalþein translates something different at 1Tim 5:21.
15 With no explanation, hraiwa-dūbo* ‘turtle dove, wild dark dove’ (gen pl hraiwadūbono Lk 2:24),
standardly etymologized as ‘corpse [or blood(-colored)?]-dove’ (Grienberger 1900: 119; Binnig 1984; NWG
314 Compounding
218f.; EDPG 242), is listed by Rousseau (2012: 249) as an identificational compound. On p. 277, he derives
hraiwa- from Gmc. *hreb- (i.e. *hrab/ppan- EDPG 240) ‘raven’, which is phonologically impossible.
Hraiwa-dūbo* may, of course, be a folk etymology, but Rousseau does not suggest that.
7.20 Grammaticalization of compounding heads as suffixes 315
Only the two main compound heads grammaticalized as suffixes are cited here.
The remainder can be found in NCG 357–75, KM 218–29.
Traditionally *-lausaz formations, derived from Gmc. *lausaz (adj -a-) ‘free from,
deprived of ’ (Eng. -less), were included under N + A endocentrics (§7.9), but *-lausaz
behaves like a suffix rather than a compound head, inspite of the fact that laus (adj -a-)
‘empty, devoid (of), without’ remained an independent word, illustrated in (6).
(6) þam witodalausam swe witodalaus, ni wisands
D.dat.pl lawless.dat.pl as lawless.nom.sg neg being.nom.sg.m
witodis laus gudis, ak inwitoþs Xristaus
law.gen.sg devoid god.gen.sg rather in.law Christ.gen.sg
‘to those outside the law, (I act) as one outside the law, (though) (1Cor 9:21A)
not being devoid of the law of God, but rather within the law
of Christ’
Compounds with -laus correspond to Greek constructs with neg a- but supposedly
differ from un- formations in having a privative meaning (GrGS 208; Benveniste 1961:
32–6).16 Though nonnumerous, they were productive, as this sample indicates.
16 Many un- formations are also privative, e.g. un-swers ‘dishonored’, un-bimait* ‘uncircumcision’
(cf. Grewolds 1934: 158ff.).
316 Compounding
Gmc. *līkaz occurs in Goth. -leiks (adj -a-) ‘like, -ly’ and probably leiks ‘(a)like’ (q.v. in
App.); cf. Goth. leik (n) ‘body, flesh’. The adjective began to develop early in Germanic
into a suffix (Wilmanns 1896: 473–89; Kluge 1926: 114f., 226; NCG 235, 371ff.; Vilutis
1973; KM 219, 226f.). Benveniste (1961: 28–31) argues that the suffix first spread as
a way of deriving adjectives from pronominal and adverbial stems. Walker (1949)
derives the adjectival suffix from a verbal adjective *līk ‘like’ because of the meta-
phorical, moral, or mental (nonphysical) meanings. Guimier (1985) claims that *līka
originally meant ‘gestalt, form, shape’; cf. Wilmanns (1896: 474): “waira-leiks männlich,
eig. ‘die Gestalt, die Art des Mannes habend’. ” Killie (2007) supports the traditional
derivation, but emphasizes the indeterminate nature of the data, and allows for input
from the adjective. For ga-leik-s ‘like’, for instance, nothing precludes an original
meaning ‘(having) a body together; (having) a similar body’ (cf. Ambrosini 1958: 235).
For Wolfe (2014: 198, 199) ‘like’ is metaphorically “ ‘bodied’ as something else”.
A formation like Goth. ibnaleiks* ‘equivalent’ should have meant something like
‘having an equal form/body’ (KM 226), i.e. ‘exactly the same’ (Wolfe 2013: 130). Wolfe
disputes the idea that ibnaleiks* was created to translate Gk. homooúsios ‘of like being/
substance’ (Snædal 2015a: 85). Either way, -leik compounds had already developed
noncompositional semantics. Whether or not the construct had additional motivation
from expressions like ni | ibna nih galeiks (Sk 1.1.12f.) ‘neither equal nor like’ (Benveniste
1961: 29) is a separate issue.
Suffix status was completed in the individual Germanic dialects on the evidence of
forms like OHG langlīh ‘long’ or ON ungligr ‘youthful’ where i- umlaut does not apply
in contrast to ynglingr ‘young person’ where it applies before a true suffix (Miller
2017).
For the compound, compare the following (cf. KM 34, LCG 219):
Adverbs in -o
Following is a sample of the adverbial formations in -o (never -(a)ba) built on -leiks
(cf. Heidermanns 1996: 259f.).
alja-leik-o [other-form-ly] ‘otherwise’: jabai as aljaleiko laisjai (1Tim 6:3B*) ‘if any-
one should teach otherwise’, i.e. teach a different doctrine = Gk. hetero-didaskaleĩ
‘teach differently, teach heterodoxy’ (Kind 1901: 23). Since alja- is semantically
comparative (Wilmanns 1896: 444), the cmpv adv aljaleikos ‘otherwise, differently’
(1Tim 6:3A*, 5:25A/B, Phil 3:15A/B) has the same meaning. Related are the com-
parative adverbs ON elligar (= ella) ‘else, otherwise’, OE elcor ‘id.’, OS elkor* (elcor)
‘else, otherwise, in addition’, OHG ellihhor ‘id.’ (Schmid 1998: 449, 451)
Compare alja-leikodos* <aljaleikaidos> (Gal 4:24B) [likened to other things]
‘allegorical’ (adj/PP nom pl f), rendering Gk. allēgoroúmena [being spoken other-
wise] ‘spoken allegorically’, allegory being another new concept to the Goths (Kind
1901: 23)
ana-leik-o [on-form-ly] (Sk 7.1.13) ‘in like manner’; cf. OE onlīc ‘similar’, MHG anelich
‘id.’; cf. OHG analīhhī ‘similarity, correspondence’ (Wilmanns 1896: 474; Schmid
1998: 97, 138, 449)
anþar-leik-o [other-form-ly; cf. Seebold 1968c: 76] ‘otherwise’: ei anþarleiko ni lais-
jaina (1Tim 1:3A/B) ‘that they not teach otherwise’ (i.e. teach in a different manner,
teach false doctrines); cf. the noun anþarleikei* (acc sg -leikein Sk 5.3.5, 6.2.23f.)
‘difference’. Relatives include ON annarligr ‘strange, alien’, OE comparative adv
ōðerlīcor ‘in another way’, OS ōtharlīk* (comparative nom sg n odarlicora etc.)
‘changed’, OHG anderlîh (anderlich etc.) ‘looking different’ (Schmid 1998: 139, 449;
GPA 382, NWG 300)
arma-leiko [poor-like-ly] (hapax Bl 1r.8 Falluomini 2017: 286, 292) ‘remorsefully, con-
tritely; pitifully, miserably’; cf. ON armligr ‘pitiful, miserable’, OE earmlīc ‘wretched,
miserable, pitiful, lamentable’, OS *armlīk (only comparative nom sg m armlicara,
armlicro) ‘miserable’, OHG arm(a/i)lich ‘miserable; pathetic, pitiful; godless’ < Gmc.
*arma-līkaz (Schmid 1998: 142f., 460f.; GPA 104, HGE 24)
ga-leik-o [similar-form-ly]: ni wulwa rahnida wisan sik galeiko guda (Phil 2:6B)
‘thought it not robbery to be similarly to God’ (§9.31). Ga-leik- regularly corresponds
to Gk. homoio- ‘like, similar’ but here it is paired with Gk. ĩsa / ísa theõi ‘equally
to God’ (Lat. aequālem ‘equal’), which is rendered by ibns* and contrasts with it, as
in ni | ibna nih galeiks (Sk 1.1.12f.) ‘neither equal nor like’, inviting the hypothesis
that galeiko reflects Homoian theology (cf. Weinhold 1870: 4; Quinlin 2007; Pakis
2008), but may involve an objection to Gk. ousíā as implying ‘physical substance’
(Wolfe 2014)
laþa-leik-o [invitation-form-ly] (2Cor 12:15A) ‘with pleasure, gladly’ accompanied by a
margin gloss gabaurjaba ‘gladly, delightedly’ (which replaces laþaleiko in B): renders
a superlative Gk. hedista, Lat. libentissimē ‘most pleasurably, willingly’); cf. (ga)laþon
‘summon, invite’ (Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 13f.), OHG ladalîh* (ladalihun glossing
Lat. invītātōrium) ‘inviting’ (Schmid 1998: 288, 449)
318 Compounding
waira-leik-o [man-form-ly] ‘in a manly way, manlike’: wairaleiko taujaiþ (1Cor 16:13B)
is supposedly a calque on Lat. virīliter agite ‘act in a manly way’ (Marold 1882: 56),
which also translates Gk. andrízesthe ‘play the man, behave like a man’; cf. OE
werlīc ‘manly’ (Velten 1930: 350; Schmid 1998: 450; NCG 65; Dolcetti Corazza 1997:
16; LCG 233; Francovich Onesti 2011: 208)
-leik- adjectives
Following are examples of adjectival -leik- formations with potential cognates in two
or more Germanic languages (cf. LHE2 327).
17 The line reads: fram fraujin warþ sa jah ist sildaleiks in augam unsaraim ‘by the Lord this occurred,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’. The masculine gender is strange. Neuter is expected because ‘this’ refers to
the previous sentence ‘the stone which the builders cast out, it (sah) has become the head of the corner’.
The masculine gender is evidently due to stains ‘stone’, which is a misinterpretation (it is not the stone that
7.23 The composition vowel 319
remarkable’, OE seldlīc, sellīc ‘strange, wonderful’ (Buckalew 1964: 91; Schmid 1998:
353f., 450; HGE 323, GED 303, NWG 90)
swa-leiks [so-like] ‘such’ (§3.8) = OHG so-līh (Wilmanns 1896: 474, 575; Schmid 1998:
451f., 532), OS sulīk <sulic, sulig, sulik>, OE swelc (GED 331f.)
is marvelous!). The Hebrew text of Psalm 117:22–3 has the feminine gender (Hebrew has no neuter),
copied in the Septuagint: haútē ‘this’, thaumaste ‘marvelous’ (Wolfe 2018a).
18 Broþru- cannot be the older form because, if the consonant stem had no juncture vowel, the expected
composition form would have been *broþur- (< *broþr-). The plural of broþar follows the -u- stem pattern
because of the regularity of acc broþruns, dat broþrum (Johnsen 2005: 255).
320 Compounding
1886: 118f.; Seebold 1968c: 90; Karpov 2005a: 20). Probably related to this is the fact
that original *-ī- stems also have a short /i/, as in þūsundi-faþs ‘chiliarch’.
Bahuvrihis with an adjectival first component often drop the composition vowel
-a- (Seebold 1968c: 76); cf. hauh-hairts ‘high-hearted’, but note arma-hairts* ‘tender-
hearted’. Like the former is hauh-þūhts (1Tim 6:4A/B) ‘conceited’, which renders Gk.
3sg pf tetúphōtai [lit. is smoked up, beclouded] ‘is puffed up’. Compare the English
expression ‘blowing smoke’ and see Regan (1972: 161f.). Identical also is the pseudo-
calque mikil-þūhts* (acc pl mikilþūhtans Lk 1:51), based on an assumed composition
[over-seeming] of Gk. hupere phanos ‘overbearing, arrogant’ (ibid. 162f.), which
however is an obscure formation (EDG 1533).19
Seebold mentions forms like laus-qiþrs* ‘fasting’, laus-handja* ‘empty-hander’, but
lausa-waurds* ‘talking idly’ keeps the vowel. Nearly every generalization has excep-
tions, as Seebold (1968c: 76f.) notes. However, one generalization seems relatively safe
(ibid. 88): ‘pronominal’ adjectives, which in the simplex have only weak inflection, in
composition invariably have -a-. These are fruma- ‘former, first’, ibna- ‘equal’, missa-
‘reciprocal, mis-’, sama- ‘same’, silba- ‘self ’, *silda- ‘seldom’. This generalization accounts
for a number of instances of -a- in bahuvrihis.
If it is a compound at all, haubiþ-wunds* in haubiþwundan brāhtedun (Mk 12:4)
‘they made him head-wounded’ (Gk. ekephalaíōsan ‘they hit him on the head’) is
anomalous (haubiþ could be acc of respect; cf. Kirchner 1879: 6, w. lit). It is not listed
by Dolcetti Corazza (1997) as a bahuvrihi (‘having a head wound’). If endocentric
(‘head-sore’) it should have a juncture vowel. With the form wund- it is unusual as
a synthetic compound (‘head-wounded’). Seebold (1968c: 81) follows Streitberg in
assuming three separate words ‘they made his head sore/wounded’, which is consistent
with uses of briggan (§4.53).
Seebold’s main generalization (1968c: 93–6) is that the presence or absence of -a- goes
back to accentual conditioning. In Lithuanian, endocentric compounds accent the first
constituent and in Gothic keep the juncture vowel; bahuvrihis accent the second con-
stituent and Gothic loses the vowel. The conditioning factor for dropping the vowel was
between a secondary and a primary stress (`. . .´). When the accentual conditioning was
lost, exceptions came about largely through spread of the juncture vowel.
Accentuation of the second constituent can also explain ala- (for alla-) and mana-
(for manna-),20 which obviates the necessity for the suffixal accent supposed by
Rousseau (2012: 61).
Two kinds of compounds invariably lack juncture -a-. The first involves P-words
(preposition and particle prefixes) and the second indeclinable numerals.
Regardless of the compound type or how the form is derived, P-words do not take
a juncture vowel (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 541–4; Seebold 1968c: 82): af-guþs* ‘ungodly’,
19 Completely obscure is the formation of wiga-deina (-o?) ‘thistle’ (only wigadeinom Mt 7:16), if indeed
the first constituent is wigs ‘road’ (see NWG 106).
20 Regan (1972: 189–202) speculates that nom pl m un-mana-riggwai (2Tim 3:3 B ~ -rigwai A) ‘untamed’
may be a copy-error for *un-man(a)-triggwai [un-man-true], i.e. ‘perfidious’.
7.23 The composition vowel 321
7.24 Conclusion
Early Germanic had endocentric, bahuvrihi, and synthetic compounds, all three of
Indo-European origin. The last type was the most restricted, especially in Gothic
which had only one formation based on the passive participle. Despite denials that
Germanic had dvandva and identificational compounds, the latter are well entrenched
and there may be a few examples of the former. The major problem has been the
incorrect assumption about the structure and semantic content of these categories.
Compounding was a productive process in Gothic, especially with the suffixes
-(j)a- and -(j)an-.
Many novel compounds appear in the short book of Ephesians. This sample con-
tains twelve examples that are unique to Ephesians, and several more that also occur
either in Titus or Corinthians.
Implications for Germanic dialectology can be drawn from types that occur in
North and West Germanic but not Gothic. Most relevant here are the compound
heads grammaticalized as suffixes. Some do not occur in Gothic but are frequent in
North and West Germanic. These include *-dōma- and *-skapi-, but *-lausa- and
*-līka- are common Germanic. There are no types shared exclusively by Gothic and
North Germanic, which is consistent with the hypothesis, contrary to tradition, that
Gothic and North Germanic never formed a subgroup. One might argue that the suffixes
not shared by Gothic and Northwest Germanic were simply post-Gothic developments
after the Goths split from the rest of Germanic, but that still begs the question why
there are none specific to Gothic and North Germanic.
CH APTER 8
Nominal derivation
8.1 Introduction
Suffixation is crosslinguistically the most frequent overt formative for derivation
and inflection.1 Next in frequency is prefixation. The least frequent type is infixation.
Combined prefixation and suffixation, as in en-vigorN-ateV (there is no *en-vigor
or *vigor-ate), is not the same as a circumfix, which is a crosslinguistically rare
type of split morpheme whose constituent parts have no independent meaning.
Germanic follows this basic typology. Derivation is mostly suffixal. Prefixation of
prepositions and particles is used for semantic and aspectual contrasts, mainly on
verbs and their derivatives, with occasional combined prefixation and suffixation,
as in Goth. ga-mun-d- ‘memory’ (§8.10). Kotin (2012: 395) confuses this process
with circumfixes, which along with infixes play no significant role in Germanic core
morphology.
1 A basic familiarity with derivation is assumed here. For discussion, see Štekauer et al. (2012), Miller
(2014b) (with problems for traditional primary and secondary derivation), Alexiadou (2014), and for
different theoretical views, other papers in Lieber & Štekauer (2014).
2 For additional details, see Schindler (1972, 1975), Meier-Brügger (2010: 336–53), and Ringe (2017:
56–66). Kiparsky (2010) and others (e.g. Kümmel 2014; Lundquist & Yates 2017) replace it with a
compositional account based on modern ideas of morpheme vs. word accentuation and (some) inde-
pendence of ablaut. In that system, proterokinesis does not exist. Kiparsky, for instance, posits an account
without accent alternations that better matches the forms in the daughter languages, e.g. nom *suh-nú-s
‘son’, nom pl *suh-néw-es, etc.
(Gmc. *-īn-, *-iþō, WGmc. *-nissa). Since the former were typical of Indo-European,
and the latter more characteristic of Germanic, these will be emphasized in our
discussion.3
Least productive in Germanic are the consonant stems, residual everywhere and
not treated here (for a few examples, see §§3.2f.). Many were reassigned to other stem
types. Thematization was a productive pattern in Germanic (Makaev 1964: 26f.), as
were extensions by -n- of various vowel stems (Wilmanns 1896: 201ff.; Thöny 2013).
Þiudinassus (10x, 2 dupl) ‘kingdom; rule’ (§10.4) is derived from þiudan-on ‘be king,
rule’ with generalization of -inassus from nouns like fraujinassus*. The source verbs
are denominal (cf. frauja ‘lord’, stem fraujin-; þiudans = Gk. basileús ‘king’). Blotinassus*
‘worship’ (blotan ‘to (perform) worship’) shows that -inassus had become productive
(Cluver 1968: 17f.), unless from unattested *blotinon (Kotin 2012: 391). Synonymy of
the two verbs does not preclude their existence (pace Sturtevant 1938: 467). Hor-inon
3 See Bahder (1880), Kluge (1926), Krahe & Meid (1967), Cluver (1968, 1969), Bammesberger (1990a),
Weber (1991), Casaretto (2004), the references in Heidermanns (2011, Vol. 1), the overviews of PIE
morphology in Neri (2017a), Lundquist & Yates (2017), and Germanic morphology in Harðarson (2017).
326 Nominal derivation
‘commit adultery’ (hors ‘adulterer’) shows that verbs in -inon got divorced from -n-
stems (Wilmanns 1896: 102). It is then plausible that -inassus was independent of
-inon verbs.
Wan-inassus* ‘shortage, lack’, to wans* ‘missing, lacking’, is probably from an
unattested verb *wanan ‘to lack’ (VGS 115ff.; Sturtevant 1938: 467f.; NWG 533, 537).
Mezger (1930) posits *waninon. For -assus in nondeverbal derivation, cf. ufarassus
‘abundance, superfluity’, dat ‘beyond measure’ (Barasch 1973: 110) to ufar ‘over’.4
From *ebnatjan- (OE emnettan) ‘to level’ (VGS 115, LHE2 325), or more likely deadj
to *ebnaz ‘level’ (Goth. ibns*: nom sg m wk ibna Sk 1.1.13 ‘equal’ < (*h1)em-nó-
Schaffner 2000, EDPG 113f., LIPP 2.6), was derived *ebnassus ‘leveling’ (GGS 166,
HGE 82, NWG 534, 538): Goth. ibnassus ‘equalization, equity’ (3x, 2 dupl); cf. OS efnissi
‘ground, soil’ (Heliand), OE emnes(s), efnes(s) ‘levelness, equality’ > evenness.
The suffix *-assu- is confined to Gothic and West Germanic (De Vries 1956: 6f.). Its
source was west IE *-at-tu- (GS 171; VGS 110f., 114; Schumacher 2000: 209). It was
most productive in Gothic in deverbal derivation, but the close match to Old Irish
denom -as leads Hill (2002) to propose that *-assu- was borrowed from Celtic. This is
unlikely because of the absence of actual loanwords with this suffix (LHE2 325).
4 Ufarassus substitutes for the lack of an equivalent for Gk. huperbállōn ‘surpassing, exceeding; excel-
ling; excessive’, e.g. in ufarassaus wulþaus (2Cor 3:10A/B) ‘on account of the excelling of glory’ for Gk.
héneken tẽs huperballoúsēs dóxēs ‘on account of the glory that surpasses (the Gospel)’ (Kapteijn 1911: 324);
kunnan þo ufarassau mikilon þis kunþjis friaþwa Xristaus (Eph 3:19A/B) ‘to know Christ’s love (that is)
great in the surpassing of knowledge’ for Gk. gnõtaí te t n huperbállousan tẽs gn seōs agápēn toũ khristoũ
‘and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge’ (Gering 1874: 323). For the adverbial dative cf.
ufarassau kauridai wesum (2Cor 1:8B) ‘we were overwhelmed exceedingly’ (Kapteijn 1911: 271). For more
examples and discussion, see Marold (1883: 77f.).
8.5 -ei (f -n-) 327
Germanic *-īn- is generally derived from *-ī- plus the same *-n- that marks
definiteness (Novickaja 2004; Kotin 2012: 197ff., 391). But *-ih2-n- is problematic even
for feminine participles, which are extended from *-ih2- (e.g. Delbrück 1870: 402f.;
Sievers 1878b: 143f.; Douse 1886: 96) and reflect analogy to the weak adjective *-ō-n-
(W. Krause 1963: 153; KM 102; NWG 281; Kroonen 2011: 37; Thöny 2013: 265).
Olsen (2004, 2006) proposed that *-īn- goes back to a PIE alternation *-i-h3onh2-
(> Lat. -iō, gen -iōnis, Gmc. *-jōn) / *-ih3nh2-os (> Gmc. *-īn-). If correct, this suffix
328 Nominal derivation
would have had nothing to do with definiteness by origin. Even if *-ih2-n- is correct,
PIE *-n- formations were not all the same semantically (Kroonen 2011: ch. 2), and
there is more than one possible source for the -n- in Germanic.
Accented *-īn- ́ has been proposed because of Verner’s Law in words like Goth.
naqadei ‘nakedness’ to naqaþs ‘naked’, but (i) the stem is naqad- (Bernharðsson 2001:
89f.), and (ii) there are many exceptions (Woodhouse 2000a: 208f.), as perhaps pre-
́ with residual *-īn-. In Gothic this complex is
dicted by generalization of *-j n and *-īn-,
represented by -jon and -ei, of which the latter is the most important. For the connec-
tion to the Latin suffix, cf. Goth. ga-mainei* ‘communal sharing, participation’ (ga-
mains ‘sharing; shared, communal’) = Lat. com-mūniō ‘association’ (Olsen 2004: 239).
Bearing in mind that in West Germanic the *-īn- abstracts tended to be replaced by
other formations, following are a few examples of the reflex(es) of historical *-īn- from
more than one Germanic language (cf. KM 146), Gothic forms being unspecified:
bairhtei* (dat sg bairhtein) ‘(in) the open’ (Mt 6:4, 6) = Gk. en tõi phanerõi ‘id.’; ‘man-
ifestation’ (2Cor 4:2A/B) = Gk. phanérōsis, Lat. manifestātiō ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 494;
Elkin 1954: 351f.); relatives include ON birti ‘brightness, clarity’, OHG berahtī
‘clarity’ (cf. OE birhtu ‘brightness, clarity’), derived from Gmc. *berhtaz (Goth.
bairhts*) ‘clear, evident’ (MUN 180, NWG 285)
balþei* ‘boldness’ (2Cor 3:12A/B, 1Tim 3:13A, Sk 8.2.21, 8.3.20f., etc.) (cf. þrasa-balþei*
‘quarrelsomeness’ (§7.3), a possible Greek calque: Snædal 2015a: 85) = OHG baldī
‘courage, boldness’ (cf. OE b(i)eldo ‘boldness, rashness’), derived from *balþ/daz
‘bold’ (cf. Goth. balþaba ‘boldly’) (NWG 285f., Kiparsky 2010)
bleiþei ‘goodness, mercy’ (Gal 5:22A/B) = OHG herz-blīdī ‘joy’, derived from *blīþ(j)az
(Goth. bleiþs) ‘merciful’ (NWG 286)
diupei ‘depth’ = OS diupi ‘id.’, OHG tiufi ‘id.’, derived from *deupaz (Goth. diups*)
‘deep’ (NWG 287)
faurhtei* (Mk 5:42, 2Tim 1:7A/B) ‘fear’ (a sudden reaction to an event, experienced by
those lacking faith: Carlson 2012) < Gmc. *furhtīn, derived from *furhtaz (Goth.
faurhts*, OE forht) ‘fearful’; cf. OE fyrhtu fright (GPA 224, HGE 120, NWG 287)
filuwaurdei* (Mt 6:7) ‘verbosity’ (a calque on Gk. polulogíā); cf. ON fjolorðr ‘talkative’
= OE felawyrde [Wulfstan] ‘loquacious’, probably a calque on Lat. multiloquus
(NCG 93, 384; NWG 303)
gairnei* ‘longing, yearning, desire’ (2Cor 7:7A/B, 7:11A/B, 8:19A/B, 9:2A/B, 1Thess
4:5B; cf. faihugairnei* [money-craving]: faihugairneins 1Tit 1:11A) = ON á-girni
‘ambition, cupidity’, OHG gernī ‘zeal, care’ < Gmc. *gern-īn-, derived from *gernaz
(Goth. (faihu)-gairns* ‘covetous, avaricious’) (NWG 288)
garaihtei ‘righteousness; justice’ (53x, 12 dupl) = ON rétti ‘straight direction’, OS rihti
‘canon, rule’, OHG rehtī ‘order, justice’, girihtī ‘righteousness; punishment’ < Gmc.
8.7 -iþa (f -ō-) 329
*rehtīn, derived from *rehtaz (NWG 301f.; cf. Goth. garaihts ‘upright, righteous,
just’; see raihts* in App.)
godei* ‘virtue, goodness’ (Phil 4:8B) = OS gōdī ‘goodness’, OHG guotī ‘goodness, vir-
tue’ < Gmc. *gōdīn, derived from *gōdaz (Goth. goþs) ‘good’ (NWG 289)
hauhei ‘height, highness’ = OS, OHG hōhī < Gmc. *hauhīn, derived from *hauhaz
(Goth. hauhs*) ‘high’ (NWG 289)
hrainei ‘cleanliness’ (by Christian purification or baptism: Del Pezzo 1973b) = OHG
(h)reinī ‘id.’ < Gmc. *hrainīn, derived from *hrainiz (Goth. hrains) ‘clean’ (MUN
180, NWG 290)
laggei ‘length’ = OHG lengī (cf. OE lengu ‘id.’) < Gmc. *langīn, derived from *langaz
(Goth. laggs*) ‘long’ (NWG 291)
þaurstei* ‘thirst’ (2Cor 11:27B) = ON þorsti ‘id.’ < Gmc. *þurstīn-, derived from the
unattested adj *þurstaz ‘thirsty’; cf. OHG durst ‘thirst’, OE þurst thirst < Gmc.
*þurstuz < dial. IE *trs-tu- [*ters- ‘dry’] (GPA 632, HGE 430, LIV 637f., MUN 180,
NWG 294, EDPG 553)
aggwiþa ‘distress’ (aggwus* ‘narrow’ and gaaggwjan ‘constrict’) (Pimenova 2004a: 169;
semantic parallels in Velten 1930: 501)
airkniþa (2Cor 8:8A/B) ‘legitimacy of birth; sincerity, genuineness’ (airkns Bl 1r.10
‘(innately) holy’); cf. unairkns* ‘unholy (by nature)’ (Lacy 1979: 288ff.)
arma-hairtiþa ‘mercy, charitable deed’ (armahairts* ‘compassionate’)
daubiþa* ‘unfeelingness’ (daufs* ‘hardened, insensitive’)
diupiþa ‘profundity; the deep’ (diups* ‘deep’)
fairniþa* ‘oldness’ (fairneis* ‘old, worn out’)
gauriþa ‘sorrow’ (gaurs ‘sorrowful’)
hauhiþa ‘height, the high’ (hauhs* ‘high’)
hlūtriþa* ‘purity’ (hlūtrs* ‘pure’)
kauriþa* ‘burden’ (kaur(u)s* ‘weighty’)
mildiþa* (Phil 2:1B) ‘tenderness’ [Gk. splágkhna ‘innards; (various) affections’] (*mild-
i/ja-; cf. unmildeis* ‘uncompassionate, fierce’)
niujiþa* ‘newness’ (niujis ‘new’)
ana-niujiþa* ‘a renewing’ (ana-niujan* ‘renew’) (cf. Pimenova 2004a: 170)
330 Nominal derivation
Pimenova (2000: 8) interprets (7) as ‘betrübt über die Verstockung ihres Herzens’
[sorrowful over the hardening of their heart], based on her idea of a passive literal
translation ‘über ihr verstocktes Herz’ [over their hardened heart]. But the translation
target in Greek, the Vulgate, and most of the Vetus Latina manuscripts including
the codex Brixianus is ‘hardness of their heart’.7 Moreover, the passive interpretation
5 Bahder (1880: 157f.) and Schubert (1968: 50) take both the verb and the noun from an adjective
*swegns ‘happy, joyous, merry’.
6 On the hapax sagiþa* (gen pl sagiþo 1Cor 15:2A) ‘reason; way’ (formerly read sauþo, from sauþa*
‘manner, way’; e.g. Grienberger 1900: 182f.; Grünwald 1910: 9; NWG 108), the correct reading is sagiþo
(Falluomini 2004; 2015: 81), which Falluomini connects with Eng. say. Snædal (2013a: i. p. xix, 39) accepts
the reading but questions how in o sagiþo ‘according to what sayings’ matches Gk. tíni lógōi ‘by what
message’. Regan (1972: 86–98) suggests a copy error for *sagwō ‘of sayings, authoritative declarations’.
7 So 16 of the 21 MSS with this passage in the Brepols Vetus Latina Database (2002–). The Codex
Vindobonensis (i/17) has super ēmortua corda eōrum ‘over their dead hearts’ (cf. VL 1970: 20), i.e. ‘over the
deadness of their hearts’. In Latin a participial phrase is a normal substitute for an abstract noun with
genitive satellite, as in Livy’s ab urbe conditā [from the founded city] ‘from the founding of the city’, etc.
(cf. Woodcock 1958: 75ff.).
8.7 -iþa (f -ō-) 331
is impossible in the roughly parallel Gothic passage in (8) with ‘heart’ in the geni-
tive plural.
Following are a few cross-Germanic derivatives (cf. KM 145f.):
airziþa ‘deception, error’ (Mt 27:64, gen airziþos 1Tim 4:1A/B) = OHG irrida ‘heresy’,
usually derived from Gmc. *erzja-z, e.g. Goth. airzeis* ‘erring, misled, deluded’,
OHG irri ‘stray, erring, ignorant’ (HGE 86) < *h1ers-yo- (EDPG 119), but more likely
deverbal to (Goth.) airzjan* ‘delude’ (Grienberger 1900: 220, GPA 177f., NWG 473)
daubiþa* ‘insensitivity, unfeelingness’ = Ice. deyfð ‘deafness’ (expanded from ON deyfi
‘id.’), derived from Gmc. *dauba-z, e.g. Goth. daufs* ‘hardened, insensitive’ (Thöny
2013: 248)
diupiþa ‘the deep (sea)’ (Lk 5:4, 2Cor 11:25B), ‘depth, profundity’ (Rom 8:39A, 11:33A)
= ON dýpð / dýpt ‘depth’, OS diupitha, OLF diopitha ‘id.’, MHG tūfede ‘id.’, ME depthe
depth < Gmc. *deupiþō ‘depth’, derived from *deupaz (Goth. diups*) ‘deep’
(NWG 468)
hauhiþa (7x) ‘the high (heaven)’ (Lk 1:78, Eph 4:8A), ‘honor, glory’ (Jn 7:18), ‘height’
(Rom 8:49A+) (on the meanings see Trofimova 2017: 186) = ON hæð ‘height’, MDu
hogede ‘id.’, OHG hōhida ‘id.; peak, summit’, OE hīehðu, hīhðo height < Gmc.
*hauhiþō (~ *haugiþō) ‘height’, derived from *hauhaz (Goth. hauhs*) ‘high’ (VG
400f., NWG 468)
The source of -iþa is *-(é)-teh2-, which made abstract nouns from adjectives in
Indo-European; cf. Ved. vasútā ‘wealthiness’ (vásu ‘good(s)’), nagn-átā ‘nakedness’,
and extended sarvátā-ti- ‘completeness’ to sárva- ‘all; whole’ (KM 145, IS 423,
Steer 2014: 338–42, LHE2 75, 149). For affixal -t- see Vijūnas (2009). In Greek, *-tā-t-
replaced *-tā- as a secondary suffix; cf. barútēs ‘heaviness’ (barús ‘heavy’). With Gk.
neó-tēt- ‘youth’, cf. Lat. novitās / novitāt- ‘newness, novelty’. Lat. -i-tāt- was very pro-
ductive (LSDE 26–34; Pike 2011). Germanic likewise tended to generalize *-i-þō at the
expense of other variants, partly from -i- stems and partly because unstressed /e/
became /i/ (Wilmanns 1896: 338; cf. §8.22 below). In early Germanic this suffix
remained productive.
In Gothic, the nominative form of the suffix is -iþa. Collateral -ida occurs in auþida
(for *auþiþa) ‘desert’ (auþeis* ‘barren’), wairþida ‘worthiness’ (wairþs ‘worth(y)’), and
with variation weitwodiþa / weitwodida ‘(act of) testifying; (result or substance of the)
testimony’. For auþida and wairþida, Bahder (1880: 157) and Thurneysen (1898: 211)
suggested dissimilation of þ . . . þ (cf. Bernharðsson 2001: 96f.). Weitwodiþa is attested
17x (2 dupl: 1Tim 5:10A/B, 2Tim 1:8A/B) beside one weitwodida (Sk 4.3.23). Verner’s
Law did not apply to this suffix because the accent, on the evidence of Vedic examples
like vasútā ‘wealthiness’, preceded the suffix directly. As a result, -iþa is proper for this
formation, but -d- is consistent in all related forms, and the second -d- may result
from analogy with the participle (Woodhouse 2000a: 200, 208, 211). Woodhouse
(2000a: 201f., w. lit) concludes that if -ida forms were produced, their rarity would
have facilitated leveling.
332 Nominal derivation
Two of the most productive abstract suffixes in Gothic are -ei and -iþa.8 Given the
productivity of both, it is not surprising to find them in competition, each striving
for a domain of its own. When adjectival stems make both an -ei and -iþa derivative,
they could be distinguished semantically, reminiscent of Eng. -ness and -ity: a child’s
degree of hyperactiveness is not the same as hyperactivity, the name of the condition
(LSDE 27; EIE 177ff., w. lit).
It is generally stated that -ei is more abstract than -iþa (Kluge 1899, 1926: §§99, 116;
Benveniste 1961: 40–43; KM 145f.). The latter is less literary and more often pluralized
(Gürtler 1923: 85f.). For Pimenova (2000, 2004a, b), -iþa designates concrete things
and isolated occurrences of a characteristic (Einzelerscheinungen einer Eigenschaft);
-ei denotes a property, attribute, or inherent trait (often predicated of a subject, as is
typical of states). For Novickaja (2004) and Kotin (2012: 197ff., 391), -ei is definite and
-iþa indefinite. Other contrasts exist as well. In some cases, -ei is noncount and -iþa
count, as in kaurei ‘weight’ (2Cor 4:17B) vs. kauriþa* ‘burden’ (Gal 6:2A/B: kauriþos).
All attempts at distinguishing -ei and -iþa semantically are oversimplified. Miller
(2018) argues that some constructs differ semantically, and some exhibit overlap with
no clear semantic distinction (cf. Guxman 1958: 204). Since the overlap is only on
heavy monosyllabic bases, -iþa latched onto a prosodic domain, the nature of which
is that the citation form is dactylic or has a dactylic cadence.
Following is a list of the potential doublets in -ei and -iþa. Some have only partial
semantic overlap, -ei usually being narrower (Gürtler 1923: 84), and some are not true
doublets because of complete semantic bifurcation or differences in compounding.
airzei* ‘heresy’ (Sk 5.1.17) / airziþa ‘deception, seduction’ (Elkin 1954: 350)
armahairtei ‘compassion, pity’ / armahairtiþa ‘mercy, charitable deed’
daubei ‘insensitivity, unfeelingness’ / daubiþa* ‘insensitivity, unfeelingness’
diupei ‘depth’ / diupiþa ‘profundity; the deep’
ga-aggwei ‘enforcement’ / aggwiþa ‘distress’
ga-raihtei (53x, 12 dupl) ‘righteousness; justice’ / ga-raihtiþa (3x)
‘justification; justice’ (both translate Gk. dikaiosúnē ‘righteousness, justice’)
gaurei* ‘sorrow’ / gauriþa ‘sorrow’
hauhei ‘height’ / hauhiþa ‘height; the high (heaven); honor, glory’
hlūtrei* ‘purity, sincerity’ / hlūtriþa* ‘purity, sincerity’
hrainei ‘cleanliness’, un-hrainei* ‘uncleanness’ / un-hrainiþa ‘uncleanness’
kaurei ‘weight’ / kauriþa* ‘burden’
swiknei ‘purity, chastity’ (Del Pezzo 1973b) / swikniþa* ‘purity, chastity’
un-swerei* ‘dishonor’ / sweriþa ‘honor’, un-sweriþa* ‘dishonor’
8 Also productive were the abstracts in -i and -eins. The semantic distinction of these from each other
and from -ei and -iþa are discussed by Pimenova (2004a, b). Some Proto-Germanic contrasts among these
suffixes persisted into Old High German (Pimenova 2004a: 181ff., 2004b: 256, 264).
8.8 Competition between -ei and -iþa 333
While *swerei does not coexist with sweriþa ‘honor’ (9), both unswerei* ‘dishonor’ (10)
and unsweriþa* ‘id.’ (11) are found one time each for a form of Gk. atīmíā ‘dishonor’.
(9) ainamma frodamma9 guda sweriþa jah wulþus in aldins aiwe (1Tim 1:17B)
‘to the sole wise God [be] honor and glory into the generations of the ages’
[Gk. tīm kaì dóxa, Lat. honor et glōria ‘honor and glory’]
(10) þairh wulþu jah unswerein, þairh wajamerein jah wailamerein (2Cor 6:8A/B)
‘by glory and dishonor, by bad repute and good repute’
(11) bi unsweriþai qiþa, swe þatei weis siukai weseima (2Cor 11:21B)
‘in dishonor/shame I speak as (to the fact) that we were weak’
Given that un- favors -ei derivatives, the hapax unsweriþa* is probably motivated by
the relatively frequent sweriþa (15x). The fact that five of those fifteen occurrences are
in Skeireins may suggest productivity.
The only other negated -iþa formation is unhrainiþa. Both that and unhrainei*
translate a form of Gk. akatharsíā ‘uncleanness’, but there is a semantic distinction:
(12) horinassu, unhrainein [also MS A], winnon, lustu ubila[na] (Col 3:5B)
‘adultery, uncleanness, desire, evil lust’
(13) ana unhrainiþai þoei gatawidedun, horinassau jah aglaitja10 (2Cor 12:21A)
‘for the unclean(ness) that they committed, adultery and debauchery’
dis-wiss* ‘departure’ (gen sg -wissais 2Tim 4:6A/B) translates Gk. aná-lusis ‘a releas-
ing; departure’ (Velten 1930: 494) and is derived from *dis-widan ‘divide’ (cf. ga-
widan* ‘conjoin’, ga-wiss* ‘joint’: acc pl -wissins Eph 4:16A, Col 2:19B), going back
to Gmc. *wes-si- < IE *(H)wedh-ti- [*(H)wedh- ‘lead, join’] (GED 153f., VEW 542,
NWG 509, EDPG 577)
fra-lust-s ‘destruction, perdition’ (9x: Jn 17:12, Phil 1:28B, 3:19A/B, 1Thess 5:3B, etc.) =
OS far-lust ‘destruction, death’, OHG for-lust ‘loss, destruction’; cf. Goth. fra-liusan
‘to lose’ (NWG 502, EDPG 345); not a derivative of lustus* (pace LIPP 2.637)
ga-baurþs* ‘birth’ (Mk 6:21, Lk 1:14, Jn 9:1, Sk 2.2.3), ‘giving birth, birthing’ (1Tim
2:15A/B), ‘nationality’ (Mk 7:26), ‘country’ (Mk 6:4, Lk 4:23, 4:24), ‘era’ (Mk 8:38),
‘nature’ (Rom 11:21A) = ON burðr (m) ‘carriage, bearing; birth; fetus’, OS gi-burd
‘birth, descent’ (m), OHG gi-burt ‘birth’, OF berde ‘birth, fetus’, OE (ge)byrd ‘birth;
destiny’ < Gmc. *bur-þ/di-z < IE *bhr-tí- [*bher- ‘bear’]; cf. Ved. bhrtí- ‘bearing;
gift’ (Lundquist 2015: 62; Kiparsky 2010; see also VG 439, 454ff., NWG 497f., LHE
273, EDPG 84f.); an unnecessary assumption is that isolated (with /þ/) gabaurþs* is
analogical to gaqumþs etc. (Suzuki 2018)
ga-hugds* (12x, 2 dupl) ‘reason; attitude, disposition’ (Regan 1972: 141, 145) = ON -hugð
‘mindset, sense’, OE gehygd ‘thought, deliberation’, OS gihugd ‘thought, memory,
OHG gihuct ‘memory, recollection’ < Gmc. *(ga=)hug-ði-, to hugjan ‘think’ (NWG
514, HGE 190)
ga-kusts* ‘proof ’ (acc gakust 2Cor 9:13B) = OS kust ‘choice, preference, glory’, OHG
kust ‘choice, evaluation, decision’, OF kest ‘choice, statute’, OE cyst ‘choice, election’
< Gmc. *kus-ti-z [*ǵeus- ‘choose’] (MUN 140, HGE 226, LIV 166f., NWG 501f.,
EDPG 313)
ga-munds* ‘memory’ (1Cor 11:24A,11:25A), ‘memorial’ (Mk 14:9), ‘mention’ (Eph
1:16A/B) = ON mynd ‘shape, form, image’, OE ge-mynd ‘memory, remembrance,
mind’, etc. (see ga-munds* in App.)
ga-nists ‘salvation, deliverance’ (11x, 3 duplicated) = OS gi-nist ‘release, salvation’,
OHG gi-nist ‘cure, healing’ < Gmc. *nes-ti-z, derived from *nesan- ‘rescue, save’
(Goth. ga-nisan ‘be saved, healed’ (MUN 143, NWG 503)
ga-qumþs* ‘gathering together’ (2Thess 2:1A), ‘council, assembly, sanhedrin’ (Mt 5:22),
‘synagogue’ (Mt 6:2, 6:5, 9:35, Jn 16:2, 18:20, Lk 4:15), which alternates with swnagoge*
11 Additional examples can be found in Bahder (1880: 62–78), Benveniste (1960b), KM 151–6, MUN
139ff., VG 436ff., NWG 496–517 (54 Gothic examples), Brosman (2009), Kotin (2012: 389f., w. lit).
8.9 -þs / -ds / -ts / -ss (f -i-) 335
‘synagogue’ only in Mark, Luke, and John (§1.6). For the meanings of gaqumþs*,
see Kind (1901: 32ff.), Groeper (1915: 13ff.), Velten (1930: 490), Laird (1940: 74ff.),
and Wolfe (2018b). Cognates: ON sam-kund ‘gathering, convention; feast’, OHG
c(h)umft, qhumft, kumft, kunf(t) ‘arrival’ < Gmc. *k(w)um-þ/ði-z < IE *g wm-tí-
[*gwem- ‘come, go’]; cf. Lat. con-ventiō ‘assembly’ (HGE 230f., NWG 504f., EDPG
321, LHE2 100)
ga-skafts (10x, 5 dupl) ‘creation’ (Mk 10:6, 13:19), ‘creation/creature’ (Mk 16:15S allai
þizai gaskaftai ‘to all that creation’, i.e. ‘to every creature’), ‘creature’ (Rom 8:39A),
etc. = OS gi-scaft ‘creation; decree’, OHG gi-scaft ‘creation; being, creature’, OE
ge-sceaft ‘creation; creature; element; decree, destiny’, sceaft ‘creation, origin; crea-
ture’ < Gmc. *skaf-ti-z; cf. *skapjan- ‘create’: Goth. ga-skapjan ‘create, make’ (MUN
145, NWG 506f., LHE2 135)
mahts (Lk 6:19+ [freq]) ‘power, strength’ and esp. pl ‘miraculous power’ (Mk 6:14+),
‘miracle’ (Mt 7:22+), modeled semantically on Gk. dúnamis (Weinhold 1870: 19;
Velten 1930: 492); relatives include OS, OHG maht, ‘might, strength’, etc. (see mahts
in App.)
nauþs [need, necessity] ‘force, compulsion’ (9x, 3 dupl: Sk 1.2.16, 20, 1.3.9, 6.1.3, etc.) =
ON nauðr ‘necessity, need’, OS nōd ‘need, hardship, distress’, OHG nōt ‘id.’, OE
nīed (f/n), Angl. nēd need (cf. VG 476ff., NWG 511)
-qiss (e.g. anaqiss ‘abusive speech, slander’, gaqiss* ‘concurring, agreement’, þiuþiqiss*
‘blessing’ = Gk. eulogíā) = OE -cwiss ‘saying, speaking’ (e.g. andcwiss ‘answer’)
< PGmc. *kwissi-, earlier *gwétsti- ‘act of speaking’ (LHE2 106), derived from
*kweþan-, Goth. qiþan ‘speak, say, tell’ (GGS 167, Meid 1964: 227, GED 32, 389,
MUN 142, NWG 504)
-seþs ‘seed’ (e.g. manaseþs ‘mankind; the world’ §7.15) (see -seþs in App.)
staþs (m) ‘place, stead’ (nom staþs Mt 15:22 / stads Lk 14:22, stem stad- freq)12 = ON
staðr ‘id.’; cf. OS stad (f) ‘id.’, OHG stat (f) ‘place’, OE stede (f) stead < Gmc.
*stadi- < IE *sth2-tí- [*steh2- ‘stand’ LIV 590f.]; cf. Lat. statiō ‘halting-place, station’
(LSDE 117, NWG 512, EDPG 472, LHE2 98, 104, 117)
þaurfts (6x) ‘need’ (Lk 19:34, Phil 2:35B, Sk 7.2), ‘need, crisis’ (1Cor 7:26A), ‘use,
advantage’ (Lk 9:25), ‘issue’ (Eph 5:4B) = ON þyrft, þurft ‘need, want, necessity’,
OS thurft* (nom pl thurufti) ‘need, necessity’, OHG durft ‘id.’ < Gmc. *þurf-ti-
(Ved. trptí-, tŕpti- ‘satisfaction’), derived from from *þurfan- (Goth. þaurban*)
‘need’ (MUN 141, NWG 508, EDPG 552)
IE *-tí- made deverbal abstracts (Benveniste 1948; LSDE 97), some of which may
have been masculine originally (Brosman 2007: 224). In Latin, unenlarged -ti- is rare,
as in vestis ‘dress’ [*wes- ‘clothe’] (cf. Skt. vastí- ‘dress’). Productively, -ti- was enlarged
to -tiōn- / -siōn- (LSDE 97–118), a kind of singulative (§8.22) abstract (Stüber 2012:
12 Cf. staþs (m) [or staþ (n)?] ‘coast, shore, land’, only dat sg staþa (Mk 4:1, Lk 5:3) and possibly gen
stadis (Mk 4:35) because of the meaning (NWG 452). Snædal (2013a: ii. 487) classifies stadis with staþs
‘place, stead’. An original staþ(s) / stad- may have spawned a collateral paradigm staþ(s)* / staþ-.
336 Nominal derivation
135ff.). In Greek *-ti- was very productive, with 5645 (not counting Mycenaean)
feminine abstract action nominals in -si-. The original form was -ti-, preserved dialectally
and especially after /s/, e.g. Gk. pístis ‘persuasion; confidence’ [*bheidh- ‘trust’].
One hypothesis is that *-ti- was originally restricted to prefixed verbs. Mycenaean
Greek attests, for instance, do-so-mo /dosmós/ ‘contribution’ but a-pu-do-si /apúdosis/
‘delivery’. In later Greek the form was apó-dosis [Hdt.] ‘giving back; restitution’, with
-dosis from *dh3-tí- [*dō- / *deh3- ‘give’]. By the time of Homer, dosmós was replaced
by dósis ‘gift; giving’ generalized from the compound (Risch 1974: 39).
Gothic*-ti- formations derive largely from prefixed verbs (Kluge 1899: 65; Johansson
1904: 469f.; Schulze 1909: 323–7; Grewolds 1932: 21–5; NWG 487f.). This ceased to be
productive; cf. (acc sg) fulleiþ (kaurnis) (Mk 4:28 correct reading: Snædal 2013a: i. xvi)
‘fullness (of grain)’ < *full-ji-þi-, to fulljan* ‘fill’ (KM 156, NWG 513).13
Supposed PIE accentual and apophonic alternations like *mén-ti- / *mn-téy- [*men-
‘think’] yield mixed VL reflexes in Germanic: *mén-ti- > Gmc. *minþi- > Goth. ana-
minds* ‘suspicion, supposition’ (by blending with mund-: NWG 503); *mn-tí- > Gmc.
*mundi- > Goth. ga-munds* ‘remembrance, memory’ (VG 436ff., Irslinger 2004: 66,
Mottausch 2011: 15–21, 26–9). Vine (2004) argues that for *-ti- stems radical full grade
was normal and zero-grade *-ti- originated in prefixed forms secondarily oxytoned.
Both were likely inherited. The Rig Veda has (type frequency) 48 oxytone simplexes
beside 28 oxytone compounds, and in barytones 16 simplexes beside 9 compounds
(Lundquist 2015: 61f.). Kiparsky (2010) and Kümmel (2014) argue that Indo-Iranian
provides no evidence for proterokinesis, and Lundquist (2015) shows that -ti- was
accented in older Vedic but tended to shift by later Vedic. Kiparsky also argues that
oxytones in Germanic developed a mobile accent, thus predicting variants with and
without VL.
Although *-ti- derivatives in Germanic generally continue zero-grade root vocal-
ism, Gothic tended to generalize *-þ(i)- when the other Germanic dialects favored
*-ð(i)- (Suzuki 1992: 43; 2018). With roots ending in a vowel, liquid, or nasal, the reflex
of *-ti- could be *-þi- or *-ði-, but inherited roots ending in a laryngeal favored the
latter; cf. *ǵénh1-ti- (Lat. gēns / gent- ‘race, people, nation’) or *ǵenh1-tí- (EDPG 288) >
*kenþi- > *kindi-, e.g. ON kind ‘race, kind’ (HGE 212; Schumacher 2000: 41, 71;
NWG 487–94; EDL 258). Zero grade *ǵnh1-ti- gave Goth. ga-kunþs*, only dat sg
uf gakunþai (Lk 3:23) ‘at (the time of his) beginning’ (NWG 511) [Gk. arkhómenos
‘starting’] or (?) ‘when he became known’ from *ǵnh3-ti- (Collitz 1930). The suffix was
added to other stems, like the stative base *-eh1- in Gmc. *-ē-þi-, e.g. Goth. faheþs ‘joy’;
cf. OHG fagēn ‘to rejoice’ (Jasanoff 2002/3: 155).14
13 The nom sg can be fulleiþs* (f) or fulleiþ (n). It is attested only twice. The gen pl fulliþe (Col 2:16B)
has a specialized meaning, translating Gk. noumēníās (gen sg) not in the sense of ‘new moon; first of the
month’ but in the later sense of ‘feast; festive day’ (Ebbinghaus 1979b).
14 Semantically nontransparent ga-deþs* ‘placing’ is a dat hapax: du suniwe gadedai (Eph 1:5A/B) ‘for
the placing (adoption) of sons’, translating Gk. eis huio-thesíān ‘for son placing’, i.e. ‘for the adoption
of children (by Jesus Christ to himself)’. The -deþs formations (cf. §7.6) go back to *dēdi- ‘action, deed’
< *dheh1-tí- (NWG 510, EDPG 92). At Gal 4:5A, huio-thesíā is translated suniwe sibja ‘adoption of sons’.
8.10 -þus / -dus / -tus (m -u-) 337
In contrast to the IE *-ti- stems which retained some productivity in Germanic, the
*-tu- stems declined, in part because like other *-u- stems they tended to be remade
into -i- or -a- stems. Nevertheless, Gothic has 19 examples of *-tu-, nearly all of which
have cognates elsewhere in Germanic.15 Following is a sample.
flodus ‘large amount of flowing water’ (Lk 6:49 with gloss a a ‘(mass of) water’ [cf.
Meid 1999a] as in the previous verse; the variation may be linked to Lat. flūmen—
fluvius in cod. Brix. and Vulg. [Burkitt 1926: 95; Barasch 1973: 162]); cf. ON flóð (n)
‘flood, deluge, high tide’ (with possible traces of the -u- stem gen in flóðar- com-
pounds), Far. flóð (f) ‘high tide; heavy rain’, OS flōd (m/f) ‘flood, wave, tide, river’,
OHG fluot (f) ‘flood’, OE flōd (m/n) ‘high tide, flood’ < Gmc. *flō-du-z < dial. IE
*ploh3-tú- [*pleh3- ‘swim, flow’ LIV 485] (HGE 107, EDPG 147f.); mostly an -a- stem
outside of Gothic (cf. Gk. plōtós ‘floating’) and *flōda- may account for the voicing
in flōdu- (NWG 523)
kustus* ‘test undergone, trial’ (2Cor 8:2A/B); ‘evidence, proof ’ (2Cor 2:9A/B, 13:3A/B)
= ON kostr (m) ‘choice, alternative; opportunity’ (traces of -u- stem in acc pl
kostu), OHG kust (m) ‘evaluation, trial, choice’, OE cost, cyst (f) ‘choice, election;
excellence, virtue’ < Gmc. *kus-tu-z < IE *ǵus-tú- [*ǵeus- ‘choose’ LIV 166f.] cf. Lat.
gustus ‘tasting; taste’; from the same root are kausjan (wk 1) ‘examine (for approval);
test’ and -kiusan (str 2) ‘test, prove’ (VGS 96, AHDR 27, HGE 226, Neri 2003: 315,
NWG 525, EDL 276, EDPG 313)
15 Bahder (1880: 95–9) lists 34 Germanic *-tu- derivatives (cf. Groscurth 1930: 29f.; KM 157f.;
Brosman 1997; VG 488ff.; Neri 2003: 304–40; NWG 522–30; Brosman 2010). Goth. hliftus (Jn 10:1) ‘thief ’
to hlifan ‘steal’, if not modeled on Gk. kléptēs ‘one who steals’ to kléptein ‘steal’, may be an older formation
lost in the rest of Germanic (Brosman 1997: 28, w. lit). The formation is singular (NWG 524; Kotin 2012:
387), but the semantic development from *klép-tu- ‘theft’ to ‘thief ’ is not unusual (Neri 2003: 314).
Otherwise kléptēs is translated by forms of þiubs ‘thief ’, which renders lēist s ‘robber, plunderer’ at Lk
19:46 (Stolzenburg 1905: 24, 25).
338 Nominal derivation
luftus* ‘air’ (1Cor 9:26A, Eph 2:2A/B, 1Thess 4:17B) = ON loft (lopt) (n -a-) ‘air; sky;
loft’, OS luft (m/f -a-) ‘air’, OHG luft (m/f/n) ‘air, sky, heaven’ (cf. OE lyft (m/f/n -i)
‘id.’) < Gmc. *luf-tu-; cf. *laub-a- ‘foliage’ (> OE lēaf ‘leaf ’) (VGS 95, NWG 526,
EDPG 342)
lustus* (freq) ‘lust, desire’ (cf. un-lustus* [nondesire] renders Gk. a-thūmõsis ‘disheart-
enment, reluctance’: ei ni wairþaina in unlustau Col 3:21B ‘lest they get to be in
discouragement’, i.e. ‘become discouraged’) = OS lust* (f) ‘pleasure, desire’, OHG
lust (m/f) ‘id.’, OE lust (m) ‘desire, pleasure, lust’ (beside -i- stem lyst ‘id.’) < Gmc.
*lus-tu-z, possibly from the same root as Goth. fra-liusan ‘to lose’ (EDPG 345; see
also Neri 2003: 320, NWG 526f., LHE 293); cf. luston ‘lust after’ (§5.16)
skildus* ‘shield’ (Eph 6:16A/B) = ON skjoldr, OS skild* (scilt) (-u-/-i-), OHG skilt, OF
skeld, skiold, skiuld, OE scild, sceld (-a- stem) ‘id.’ < Gmc. *skelduz (m), derived from
*skeljan-, e.g. ON skilja ‘to part, divide’, OE scilian ‘to separate’ [*(s)kel(H)- ‘split’
LIV 552] (AHDR 77, HGE 337f., Neri 2003: 332, NWG 529, EDPG 442). Since
instruments of war typically originated as agricultural items, the connection to
Lith. skìltis ‘sheaf ’ (-ti- stem) is usually recognized (EDPG 442). The two pattern
together in Germanic mythology; cf. Beowulf ’s Scyld Scēfing ‘Shield Sheafson’
(Seamus Heaney). Shield and sheaf were associated ritual symbols of agriculture
and kingly rule in ancient tradition.
þūhtus* ‘impression’ (1Cor 10:28A, 10:29A [2x]), waurd . . . handugeins þūhtaus (Col
2:23A/B) ‘a word of a wisdom of supposition’; þūhtaus has been wrongly edited out
but the meaning is clear: ‘of supposed/seeming wisdom’ (Regan 1972: 164–7, w. lit;
differently Elkin 1954: 398f.) = ON þóttr ‘thought, mind’, OE þōht ‘id.’ < Gmc.
*þuŋh-tu-z < *tnk-tu- [*teng- ‘seem’]; cf. Goth. þugkjan* ‘seem, have the impression’
(VGS 96, Neri 2003: 333, NWG 529)
wahstus* ‘size, stature’ (Mt 6:27, Lk 2:52, 19:3, Eph 4:13A); ‘growing [caus]’ (Col 2:19B)
= ON voxtr (m) ‘growth, increase; size, stature; yield’ < Gmc. *wahs-tu-, deverb to
*wahsan-; cf. Goth. wahsjan ‘grow’ (VGS 96, Meid 1964: 240, Neri 2003: 333f., NWG
529, EDPG 566)
wulþus ‘splendor, glory’ (freq) = ON Ullr (theonym) < Gmc. *wulþuz < *wl-tu-
[*wel- ‘see’]; cf. Lat. vultus ‘facial appearance, expression’ (Grienberger 1900: 247f.;
Weinacht 1928: 11f.; HGE 474, LIV 675, Neri 2003: 339f., NWG 530, EDPG 599)
ajukdūþs* ‘eternity’ (*ajuks ‘eternal’17), as a time reference, not in the Christian sense
of ‘eternal life’ (Üçok 1938: 13f.; Buckalew 1964: 178; Francini 2009: 97)
only acc in the phrase in ajukdūþ ‘into eternity’ (Lk 1:33, Jn 6:51, 58; see §1.7)
gamaindūþs (1Cor 10:16A 2x), gamaindūþais (2Cor 9:13B), gamaindūþe (2Cor 6:14A/B),
etc. ‘sharing, communion’ (gamains ‘sharing, communal, common’); the Christian
16 This is not the same word as 1.gabaur (n -a-) ‘levy, duty, tax’ but both are derived from (ga)bairan
(§5.8) (Velten 1930: 503; NWG 53f., 79) or, more likely, simply bairan (McLintock 1969: 6f., 10f.).
17 The -j- in ajuk- perhaps did not delete because of the connection with aiws* ‘(long) time, age’, i.e.
*aiwu-k- > *aiuk > ajuk- (Weiss 1994: 147f., thanking Þórhallsdóttir; cf. LHE2 161).
340 Nominal derivation
This suffix was likely built on *-tu- by analogy with *-tā-t- (VGS 78; Brugmann 1906:
451ff.; KM 162), i.e. *-tu-h2-t- like *-ta-h2-t- (Schaffner 2005: 290f.; cf. Pike 2011; LHE2
75; MPIE 2.4.1). Unlikely is the proposal involving compounds with *tu-ti- [*teuh2-
‘swell’ LIV 639f.] (Bammesberger 1999).
Distributionally, *-tāt- is southeastern IE and Greek, *-tūt- western. Italic has both
(Wilmanns 1896: 353). In Italic and Celtic *-tut- is more frequent than in Germanic
(Brugmann 1906: 453f.; KM 162; LHE 62, 294; Pike 2011) but has different properties.
In Celtic it is masculine, e.g. Welsh bywyd ‘life’ (*gwiwo-tūt-), and in Latin it is denom-
inal and feminine, e.g. servi-tūti- ‘servanthood, servitude’.
siuns (f -i-) ‘(capacity of) sight’ (Lk 4:19, 7:21); ‘sight, seeing, visual evidence’ (2Cor
5:7A/B); ‘vision’ (Lk 1:22, 2Cor 12:1B); ‘materialization, appearance’ (Lk 1:11);
‘(visual) form’ (Lk 9:29, Sk 6.4.6, 19); ‘form, shape, appearance’ (Lk 3:22, Jn 7:24) =
ON sjón ‘sight; eyesight; look’, OS siun ‘sight; eye’, OF siune ‘face; sight; appear-
ance’, OE sīon, sī(e)n ‘power of seeing, sight, vision; eye’ < PGmc. *siuni- < earlier
*segwni- < *sekw-ní- (VGS 81, EDPG 434f., LHE2 130; cf. GED 307, MUN 147, NWG
334; for a more detailed suggestion, see Woodhouse 2003), derived from *sehwan-
‘see’ (Goth. sai an)
sokns* (f -i-) ‘(controversial) question’ (1Tim 1:4A/B, 6:4A/B); ‘inquiry, dispute’ (2Tim
2:23A/B) = ON sókn ‘attack, fight; prosecution’, OE sōcn ‘a seeking, search, inquiry;
visiting; attack’ (cf. OHG suohni ‘examination, interrogation’ < *sōk-nī-) < Gmc.
*sōk-ni-, derived from *sōkjan- (Goth. sokjan) ‘seek’ (VGS 81, MUN 148, NWG 334)
8.13 -ns (adj and f -i-) 341
ana-siuns* (adj -i-) ‘visible’ (Sk 2.4.9, 21) = ON sýnn ‘clear, evident; certain; likely’, OHG
ac-siuni ‘clear, apparent’, OE ge-sīene ‘visible’ < Gmc. *seuni- < earlier *seh/gw-ni-,
derived from *sehwan- (Goth. sai an) ‘see’ (EDPG 434f.)
hrains (adj -i-) ‘clean’ (freq) = ON hreinn, OS hrēni, OHG (h)reini ‘pure’ (see hrains in
App.)
skauns (adj -i-) (Rom 10:15A) ‘spiritually, physically beautiful’ (details in Weinacht
1928: 9ff.) = OS sconi /skōni/ ‘beautiful, brilliant, shining’, OHG scōni (Germ. schön)
‘noble, sublime, fair, beautiful’, OE scī(e)ne ‘beautiful, fair, bright’ < Gmc. *skau-ni-
‘watchable; beautiful’, derived from a lost *skawan- ‘observe’ (EDPG 441; cf. GED
310f., HGE 336f.)
18 Cf. Hitt. pešnaš ‘man’ (gen sg; nom LÚ-aš), pišnann- ‘manhood, male parts’ (LSDE 69, EDHIL 670,
both w. lit). This is denied in EDL 458, but it is just as likely that two formations fell together in Latin:
*pes-ni- ‘male (organ)’ and *petsni- ‘tail’.
19 Although ubiquitously cited, OS fersna* ‘heel’ occurs only as nom sg fersne, nom pl uersna, both in
glosses (OSD 89).
342 Nominal derivation
af-sateins* [a putting aside] ‘divorce’ (only gen sg Mk 10:4 Moses uslaubida unsis
bokos afsateinais meljan ‘Moses permitted us to file writs of divorce’), a verbal
abstract from af-satjan [off-set] ‘divorce’ that renders Gk. apo-stásion, also trans-
lated by af-stass (2Thess 2:3A; gen sg afstassais Mt 5:31), which renders apo-stasíā
‘defection, rebellion, apostasy’ at 2Thess 2:3 (cf. Velten 1930: 494); the root is from
Gmc. *sat-īni- (NWG 343); cf. OE hondseten [hand-setting] ‘signature’, OHG sezzī
‘disposition; position(ing); planting’, derived from *satjan- (Goth. -satjan ‘put, set’)
laiseins ‘teaching, instruction; doctrine’ (freq) < pre-Goth. *lais-īni-, derived from
laisjan ‘teach, instruct’ (NWG 342)
naiteins* ‘blasphemy’ (nom pl naiteinos Mk 3:28, acc pl naiteinins Mk 2:7, Lk 5:21)
< *nait-īni- < *nait-iyi-ni- (cf. ga-naitjan* (1x) ‘treat disgracefully, dishonor, insult’)
< iter *hnoid-éye- [*h3neid- ‘abuse, revile’] (LIV 303, NWG 355)
naseins ‘salvation, redemption’ (18x, 3 dupl, e.g. Lk 1:69, 1:71, 1:77, 2:30, 3:6, 19.9, Bl
1v.6, 7, 18, 19), clear Christian meanings (Velten 1930: 493); relatives include OE
-nere (cf. the -ō- stem replacement neru, and OHG nerī ‘id.’) < Gmc. *nas-īni-
< *nas-iyi-ni-, derived from *nazjan- (Goth. nasjan) ‘save, heal’ (NWG 343)
hauseins ‘message, report’ (Jn 12:38, Rom 10:16A, 1Thess 2:13B); ‘(auditory) attention;
ear’ (2Tim 4:3A/B, 4:4A/B) = ON heyrn ‘hearing’ < Gmc. *hauz-īni- < *hauz-iji-ni-
(cf. hausjan ‘hear, listen, obey’)
8.14 -eins (f -(īn)i-) 343
sokeins ‘question’ (Sk 3.1.25, 3.2.22, citing Jn 3:25) < *sōk-īni- < *sōk-iji-ni- (derived
from sokjan ‘seek’) parallel to the derivation of waurkeiþ ‘works’ (§2.12)
Once the suffix was created by phonological motivation, it was free to spread morpho-
logically to other wk 1 verbs. For instance, hazeins ‘praise’ (Lk 18:43; otherwise only in
the Epistles 1Cor 4:5A, 2Cor 8:18A/B+) is derived from hazjan ‘to praise’, traditionally
taken from IE caus *kos-éye- [*kes- ‘put in order’] (LIV 357, NWG 355), but a more
́
recent etymology posits *kh1s-yé- ́
[*keh1s- ‘instruct; chasten’] (EDPG 218), in which the
-ī- of hazeins would have no phonological motivation.
waja-mereins ‘blasphemy’ (sg nom Mk 7:22, Eph 4:31A/B, acc wajamerein Mt 26:65C,
Mk 14:64, gen wajamereins Jn 10:33), derived from waja-merjan ‘slander, blas-
pheme’, but since mereins ‘preaching, sermon’ also exists, there are several possible
ways to derive waja-mereins, which can make use of existing mereins < *mēr-īni-
(NWG 348); merjan ‘preach’ is denominal to *mēri- ‘famous’ (EDPG 366)
Of the sixty-nine Gothic examples in Casaretto (2004: 342–58; cf. Losch 1887:
225–30), only twelve have a corresponding form elsewhere in Germanic. A few follow.
daupeins ‘baptism’ (freq) (Del Pezzo 1973b) = OS dōpi, OHG toufī(n) (cf. OF dēpene
‘id.’) < Gmc. *daup-īni- (NWG 354; cf. Goth. daupjan ‘baptize’)
ga-wandeins ‘conversion’ (Sk 1.4.25); cf. OE ed-wenden ‘change; destruction; end;
apocalypse’, OF wendene ‘turn; destruction’, OHG wentī ‘turn’ < Gmc. *wand-īni-
derived from wk 1 *wandjan- ‘turn’, e.g. Goth. -wandjan ‘(cause to) turn; convert’
(NWG 345)
skeireins ‘interpretation’: skeireins razdo (1Cor 12:10A) ‘interpretation of tongues
(glossolalia)’ (Aston 1958: 28; Regan 1972: 102ff.), skerein [sic] habaiþ (1Cor 14:26A)
‘has an interpretation’; cf. ON skírn ‘baptism, christening’ < Gmc. *skīr-īni-, derived
from *skīrjan- ‘enlighten, interpret’; cf. Goth. ga-skeirjan* ‘explain, interpret;
translate’ (Velten 1930: 497f.; NWG 349), built on *skīri- > Goth. skeirs ‘clear, lucid’
(q.v. in App.)
us-lauseins* ‘salvation, redemption’ (Lk 1:68, Eph 4:30A/B) = OHG urlōsī ‘id.’ (cf. ā-lōsnīn
‘release, deliverance’), ON órlausn ‘release (from a difficulty); solution; answer,
reply’ < Gmc. *uz-laus-īni- (HGE 239, NWG 347; cf. Goth. lausjan ‘free, release’)
The paradigm, unique to the -eins class, was itself an innovation, being mostly a
feminine -i- stem (sg gen -ais, dat -ai, pl dat -im, acc -ins) but the nominative and
genitive plural (-os, -o) were from the -ō- stems. That remains an unresolved problem
(Thöny 2010). However, in terms of productive morphology, -o was the normal geni-
tive plural for feminine nouns (except for -e in the -i- stems: Thöny 2013: 237), includ-
ing the formally similar manag-ein- ‘multitude’ class (Sturtevant 1950: 84ff.). In the
-ō- stems, nom pl -os accompanied gen pl -o, as also with adjectival agreement, e.g.
laiseinos seinos ‘his teachings’. Thöny (2010: 296f.) rejects this analogy because the
344 Nominal derivation
other oblique cases were not affected, but Sturtevant notes that complete paradig-
matic revamping would have divorced *-īni- from *-ōni- and *-aini-.
This class is best attested in Gothic (KM 117f.). In North and West Germanic
other suffixes were more productive, especially -ingō-/-ungō- (NWG 333ff., 340ff.).
Even in Gothic it was not productive like other abstract suffixes (§§8.5–8.9). One
example restricted to Gothic is þiuþeins* ‘blessing’ derived from wk 1 þiuþjan* ‘bless’
(NWG 353). Another is weitwodeins (Sk 6.3.16) ‘(act of) testifying, witness-bearing’
(weitwodjan* ‘bear witness, testify’) (NWG 354), overlapping semantically (cf. W. Krause
1968: 165) with weitwodei ‘(act of) testifying’ (§§8.5, 8.9), but not with weitwodi*
‘witness’ (§8.20).
There was some blending with the *-īn- stems (§8.5), and some instances of *-īni-
go back to *-īn-i-. In Old High German and Old Saxon, *-īn- deadjectivals and *-īn-i-
deverbals have the same form (VGS 89, Thöny 2010: 288, both w. lit), sometimes
differing only in the root apophony, e.g. OHG deadjectival tiufī ‘depth’ (cf. Goth. diu-
pei ‘id.’ §8.9) vs. deverbal toufī(n) (cf. Goth. daupeins) ‘baptism’ (NWG 340f., w. lit).
þahains* ‘silence’ (þahan* ‘be silent’; cf. Lat. tac-ē-re ‘id.’ EDPG 531), þulains* ‘endur-
ance, patience’ (þulan ‘endure’), wokains* ‘vigil’ (in wokainim 2Cor 6:5A/B, 11:27B ‘in
vigils, watches’) < *wōkaini-, perhaps from a weak verb *wōkan (Sturtevant 1933b:
209f., w. lit; NWG 365), vs. OE wæcen ‘vigil, watch’ from *wakaini-; etc. (Krahe
1961: 37ff.).
The -ai- class is usually said to go back to the IE stative *-ē-, or to stative *-ē- plus
the equivalent of Sanskrit -áya- verbs (GS 682ff.).20
bloma* (m) ‘flower’ = ON blómi ‘bloom, blossom, flower’, OS blōmo* (dat sg blomon etc.)
‘id.’, OHG bluomo (and f bluoma) ‘id.’ < Gmc. *blō-man- ‘flower’ < *bhleh3-mon-; the
underlying verb is attested only in WGmc. *blō(w)an- ‘bloom, flourish’ < *bhleh3-e-
[*bhleh3- ‘bloom, flourish’ LIV 88] (VGS 139, NWG 271, EDPG 69f., LHE2 91)
hliuma (m) ‘hearing, sense of hearing, ability to hear’ < Gmc. *hleu-man-, with an
exact correspondent only in Avestan sraoman- (n) ‘(faculty of) hearing’ < *ḱleu-mn
[*ḱleu- ‘hear’]; cf. OHG (h)liumunt (m) ‘reputation’ < *ḱleu-mn-to- and ON hljómr
(m) ‘sound, tune’ < *ḱleu-mo- (VGS 140, Melchert 1983: 22, NWG 272; EDPG 230,
LHE2 108)
namo (n -n- irreg; pl namna) ‘name’; cf. ON nafn, masc OS, OHG namo, OE nama
name (see below and namo in App.)
20 Jasanoff (1973; 2002/3; 2003: 157f.; 2018) argues that it derives from an IE middle in 3sg *-ai < *-oi,
́
with extension of *-ai to *-aiþ, as in *hangaiþ ‘hangs’ < *hangai < *konk-oi. Germanic should have inherited
statives in *-eh1-, i.e. *-ē-ye/o-, which would have yielded a class in *-ē- parallel to *-ā-ye/o- > Gmc. *-ō-
(e.g. wk 2 *salbōn- ‘anoint’), but Germanic eliminated that class in favor of *-ai-/*-a- verbs (Jasanoff 1973;
2002/3: 156). For the -ai-/-a- alternation, cf. Goth. haba, habais, etc. (§5.13). Old High German leveled the
paradigm: 1sg habēm (residual habu 2x in Tatian), 3sg habēt, etc., parallel to salbōm, salbōt ‘anoint(s)’.
Habēt is the regular development of *habaiþ(i), and Goth. haba, Tatian habu, go back to *habō
(Jasanoff 1973: 853f.). Dishington (1978) favors *-ai-/-ja- rather than*-ai-/-a-. Dishington (2010) argues
that this class originated from a few verbs based on root nouns in inst *-eh1, e.g. *h1rudh-eh1-ye-ti ‘is with
redness; is red’, *wid-eh1-ye-ti ‘is with awareness; is watching’. When the inst *-ē got replaced dialectally
by *-ō or dat *-ai (*widē → *widai ‘by/on watch’), the denominal verbs followed suit, hence witaiþ ‘watches’
etc. This presupposes that (i) inst *-eh1 was the source of the stative suffix, and (ii) in the PIE verbal sys-
tem it had not yet evolved to the stative. Kroonen (2013) assumes *-ē- (< *-eh1-). Ringe (2017: 154–9,
203f.) defends the idea that *- yé- yielded the Germanic wk 3 verbs, and that all dialectal outcomes are
phonologically regular, e.g. *tak yé- ‘be silent’ (Lat. tac-ē-re ‘id.’ < *tak-eh1-) > *þag ji- > *þag i- > *þagai-
(cf. Goth. þahaiþ* ‘is silent’); *tak yó- > *þag ja- > *þagja- > NWGmc. *þegja- (e.g. ON þegja ‘they are
silent’); cf. Neri (2009: 8): *-h1ye- > *-ai-, *-h1yo- > *-ja-.
346 Nominal derivation
skeima* (m) ‘lantern’ (1x dat pl skeimam Jn 18:3) = ON skími ‘gleam of light’, OS scimo
/skīmo/ ‘light, brightness, splendor’, OHG scīmo ‘shine, beam’, OE scīma ‘splendor,
brightness, light’ < Gmc. *skī-man- ‘shine’, derived from Gmc. *skīnan- (Goth.
skeinan) ‘to shine’ (NWG 273)
Though *-men- / *-mon- / *-mn- was an archaic suffix, there are very few trans-IE
vocabulary items, suggesting that productivity was attained in the individual lan-
guages. Most *-men- neuters have full grade of the root, but a few have zero grade
as well (Saussure 1878: 130ff.; cf. Schumacher 2000: 114f.). While typically polysemic,
the original function of *-men was probably to make event nouns of the type Lat.
nūmen (‘act of) nodding’, whence infinitives like Gk. dómen(ai) ‘to give’, Ved. damane
‘id.’. Thus Melchert (1983: 15f.) argues against the claim by Haudry (1971) that the
instrumental function was original. For the change from abstract event noun to
concrete entity, cf. Eng. writing, painting, covering, clipping(s), etc. (Miller 2002: 316;
2014b: 107, 129).
Sanskrit attests alternations like Ved. sádma ‘sitting, seat’ : sadma / sadmán- ‘sitter’,
dhárma ‘ordinance’ : dharma / dharmán- ‘ordainer’, dama ‘gift’ : dāma / dāmán- ‘giver’.
These go back to PIE *-mn : -m (n). The Greek reflex -ma : -m n did not productively
alternate as in Vedic but note gnõma ‘opinion, judgment’ : gn mōn ‘judge’. Latin attests
this alternation in sēmen ‘seed’ beside Sēmō / Sēmōn- [sower] ‘seed god’.
Other residues of -m (n) :*-mn are Gk. térmōn ‘boundary’ : térma ‘goal; end-point’
and Lat. termō ‘finishing-post in a race’ : termen ‘boundary stone’ (EDL 615).
A different relationship occurs in Gk. haĩma ‘blood’ and its early compound
an-aímōn [Hom.] ‘bloodless’ (MV 415, WHS 52f.). For this use of the -o- grade, cf. Gk.
phr n ‘brain’ : á-phrōn ‘senseless’, pat r ‘father’ : a-pátōr ‘of the same father’.
Beyond that, -m n was used for deverbal agentives, e.g. hēgem n ‘leader’ (hēgéomai
‘lead’), originally a possessive adjective like mn mōn [having memory] ‘mindful,
remembering’ beside mnẽma ‘memory’ (Melchert 1983: 22).
It is difficult to ascertain the original function of -m n in words like poim n ‘shepherd’
(an innovation according to Rix 1992: 145) vs. Lith. piemuõ ‘id.’, etc. (Kuryłowicz 1968:
265, 267f.), if indeed function was at issue. Formally, *poih2-m n was probably hys-
terokinetic, like *ph2t r, acc ph2tér-m, gen *ph2tr-ós ‘father’ (§8.2). Lith. piemuõ was
secondary by contrast with gen sg piemeñs etc. and the Finnish borrowing paimen
‘shepherd’ (VG 87–91). In short, piemuõ was reassigned to the amphikinetic type
akmuõ, gen akmeñs ‘stone’ (cf. Kroonen 2011: 28ff.).
Greek consonant-stem neuters in -ma / -mat- are mostly of the count variety and
primarily designate results, instruments, and things, e.g. haĩma (gen haímatos)
‘blood’, dérma ‘skin; hide; leather’, spérma ‘seed’, heĩma ‘garment’ = Ved. vásma /
vásman- ‘cloth’ < *wés-mn. The alternation goes back to dialectal IE *mn / *-mnt-
(IEL 209). Not counting Mycenaean, Greek had 3730 nouns in -ma, of which 289 were
borrowed into Latin but only 23 survived in Romance (André 1971: 18f., 32).
In Latin the main function of -men(to)- was to make deverbal nouns denoting
means, instrument, result, or entities (LSDE 76–84). The simple neuter suffix -men
8.17 -ubni ~ -ufni / -muni (n -ja-, f -jō-) 347
ceased to be productive because its main function was taken over by enlarged
-mentum, long held to be the same -t- as in Greek paradigmatic -mat- < *-mn-t-os etc.
(LG i. 371). Excluding glossaries, Latin had some 238 -men and 307 -mentum con-
structs, including 132 doublets (Perrot 1961), as in reg-i-men / reg-i-mentum ‘rule’.
Most widespread of the neuters is the Indo-European word for ‘name’: Gk. ónoma,
Lat. nōmen, Ved. nama / naman-, Toch.A ñom, Hitt. lāman / lamn-, etc. < *h3néh3-mn /
*h3nh3-mén-. For Goth. namo, ON nafn, etc., see above and in the Appendix.
A word that is possibly so old that its root is unknown is *stéh3-mn / *sth3-mén-
‘orifice’ in Gk. stóma [Hom.] ‘mouth; opening’ (with generalized zero grade *sth3-mn)
and Hitt. ištāman- ‘ear’ (Melchert 1983: 21f., w. lit; EDHIL 411ff.).
From *stéh2-mn / *sth2-mén- [*steh2- ‘stand’] ‘means for standing’ issued Ved.
sthaman- (n) ‘standing place’, Gk. sústēma ‘organized whole; system’ (< *sún-stāma
‘a standing together’), stẽma ‘shaft, bearing (for an axle)’, and Lat. stāmen [Varro] ‘thread;
warp, loom’ (LSDE 78, EDL 589); cf. Gk. st mōn (m) ‘warp (for weaving); thread’, Lith.
stomuõ ‘body shape, stature’, Goth. stoma* (m) (dat stomin 2Cor 9:4A/B, 11:17B) ‘con-
fident stance’ < Gmc. *stōmō(n) (GED 327, MUN 184, HGE 379, NWG 274).
Matching Lat. sēmen (n) ‘seed’ is OPruss. semen ‘id.’ < *séh1-mn (LSDE 78, EDL 557)
beside Lith. sėmuõ (m) ‘flaxseed; seed; sowing’ and OS sāmo* (m) ‘seed, grain’ (acc pl
samon Isidor glosses from Strasbourg 107.2), OHG sāmo (m) ‘seed; offspring’ < *seh1-
mō(n) (VGS 141, Jasanoff 2002, HGE 328, EDPG 432, Thöny 2013: 235f., LHE2 92, 325).
Otherwise ‘seed’ was replaced in Germanic by *seh1-tí- ‘sowing’ and *seh1-tó- ‘thing
sown’ (see saian and -seþs in App.).
fastubni* (n) ‘observance (of rules)’ (1Cor 7:19, Col. 2:23 fastubnja), ‘fasting’ (Mk 9:29,
Lk 9:43 fastubnja, Lk 2:37 fastubnjam) < *fastu-mn-ja- (cf. EDPG 131); cf. OS fastun-
nia* (f) ‘fasting’ < *fastu-mnjō- (EDPG 131), which is attested only in the oblique
case fastun and may belong to a noun fastun* (NWG 278); for the etymology, see
*fast-u/ja- in the Appendix (denied in NWG 278)
fraistubni* (f) ‘a testing, temptation’ [of Jesus by the devil and of humans: Freudenthal
1959: 81f.] (Mt 6:13+ = Gk. peirasmós, Vulg. tentātiō ‘id.’: Velten 1930: 490), 4x with
-u-, 1x with -o-: fraistobnjo (Lk 4:13) < *fraist-mn-jeh2-; cf. fraisan* ‘tempt’ or rather
denominal *fraistōjan-, as in ON freista ‘tempt’ (HGE 111, NWG 278f.), possibly
from *pro-h2is-teh2- ‘an asking forth’ (EDPG 152, w. lit)
waldufni (n) ‘worldly power, authority’ (freq) (Pausch 1954: 21f.; see waldan in App.)
348 Nominal derivation
witubni* (n) ‘knowledge’ (derived from witan ‘know’), e.g. o diupiþa gabeins han-
dugeins jah witubnjis guþs (Rom 11:33A+C) ‘O the profundity of the riches of the
wisdom and knowledge of God!’; also attested is dat witubnja (1Cor 8:11A); it
translates Gk. gnõsis, which otherwise is rendered by kunþi (Elkin 1954: 402)
wundufni* (f) ‘disease, plague’ (Mk 3:10 acc pl wundufnjos)21 derived from
*wund-ōn- ‘to wound’ (Grienberger 1900: 73; NWG 279), as in Goth. ga-wondondans
(Lk 20:12) ‘wounding’, deadjectival to wunds* ‘wounded’, a dialectal root (AHDR
98, HGE 474) or more likely the original past participle *wn-tó- (EDPG 599) of
winnan ‘suffer’ (App.)
If the distribution is not an accident of the small corpus, the roots in the -uf/bni sub-
class begin with f or w and end with a dental stop (cf. Douse 1886: 109).
The source of this suffix is Gmc. *-ubn(i)ja/ō / *-munja/ō from *-mn-yó- / *-mn-yéh2.
Dialectal IE *wid-mnyó-, a derivative of *wid-mén- (cf. Ved. vid-mán- ‘wisdom’) to
*weid- ‘know’, gave Goth. witubni* (n) ‘knowledge’. The derivation is as follows:
*weyd-men-yó- > *wy/id-mn-yó-. The maximize onset principle predicts *wi.dm.
nyó- (with syllabic [m]). The alternative *wid-mnyó- (with only i and o syllabic) obeys
maximize onset for mnyo but leaves a coda in wid, so the only way maximize onset
can consistently apply to the entire word is *wi.dm.nyó-, the source of pre-Gmc.
*witumn(i)jan whence, by nasal dissimilation, Gmc. *witubn(i)ja(n).
In Germanic, Prokosch’s Law (the preference for heavy initial syllables) came into
competition with maximize onset (Riad 1992: 45–62). For Gothic syllabifications
like [niþ.jis] ‘male cousin’, [nas.jis] ‘you save’, and line-end word divisions like rod-ja
‘I speak’, swis-tar ‘sister’, neþ-los ‘of a needle’, wiþ-rus ‘wether, lamb’, see §§2.11f.
(cf. GGS 48; Bennett 1960: 28; Frey 1989; Suzuki 1995).
The alternative syllabification is attested in Goth. lauhmuni* (lauhmoni Lk 17:24)
‘lightning; blaze’ (acc lauhmunja Lk 10:18, Bl 2r.12, dat lauhmon[j]ai 2Thess 1:8A)
< pre-Goth. *l(a)uh.mun-jō < dialectal IE *l(o)uk-mn-yéh2 [*leuk- ‘light’] (NWG
277, 279) beside a syllabification *lou.km.nyéh2 > Gmc. *lau.hum.nyō > *lau.hub.
nyō, which possibly underlies ME levene, levin ‘lightning’ levin (cf. KM 130,
AHDR 49).
21 Wundufnjos should mean ‘wounds’. The alleged meaning ‘plagues’ derives from the idea that it ren-
ders Gk. mástīgas ‘plagues’. A mistranslation of Lat. plāgās, which occurs in the Vulgate and most Vetus
Latina MSS (VL 1970: 21) and means both ‘blows, wounds’ and ‘plagues, pestilences’, has been suspected
(Friedrichsen 1926: 172; Velten 1930: 501), but since Gk. mástīx also meant ‘whip, scourge’, the misinter-
pretation need not have been by some putative revisor. Other problems of interpretation of this passage
are dicussed in Campanile (1975: 122ff.).
8.18 -i (n -ja-) 349
The oldest forms of the suffix are attested in the West Germanic tribal name
Doulgoúmnioi (Ptolemy), with the later Germanic form in Lat. Dulgubniī (Tacitus,
Germania 34), possibly related to ON dólgr ‘enemy’ (KM 130).
8.18 -i (n -ja-)
The -i neuters differ from -ei in the following way: while -ei designates a characteristic
of a specific subject, -i describes the characteristic phenomenon as such (Pimenova
2004b). Contrast, for instance, barniskei* ‘childishness, being childish’ (§8.5) with barn-
iski* ‘childhood’ (GGS 166, Pimenova 2004b: 260). Both are deadjectival to barnisks*
‘childish, childlike’ (§8.34). This class also has denominals, though mostly prefixed or
compounded (Cluver 1969: 128f.).
Apart from the collectives (§8.19), Gothic had fifty-one -i neuters (Wilmanns 1896:
236ff.; NWG 124–45), of which the following constitute a sample:
3sg bi-nah [1Cor 10:23, 2Cor 12:1] ‘is allowed, permitted, expedient’ (VEW 355f.,
GPA 639, NWG 126), from the root *h2neḱ- ‘reach, attain’; more likely it is from the
root *h1euk- ‘be accustomed’, hence a nasal-infixed participle *unh-ta- < *h1u-n-
k–tó- (GED 73, LIV 244, EDPG 559)
galeiki* ‘resemblance, likeness, replica’ (cf. galeiks ‘like, similar’)
galigri* ‘a lying together, sexual intercourse’; cf. OE geligere ‘a sleeping together, adul-
tery’ (*galigrs ‘having the same bed’; cf. ligrs* ‘couch; sexual intercourse’, q.v. in App.)
gariudi* ‘respectability, dignity’ (gariuþs ‘respectable, dignified’); the abstract noun is
attested only in Gothic, but ga-riuþs is cognate with ON rjóðr ‘red, ruddy’ and OE
rēod ‘id.’ < Gmc. *reud-a- ‘red’, deverb adj to *reudan- ‘make red’ [*(h1)reudh- LIV
508], beside *h1rudh-ró- in Lat. ruber, Gk. eruthrós, etc. ‘red’ (VEW 377f., GPA 448,
NWG 128, LSDE 17, EDPG 409f., LHE2 75, MPIE 2.5, w. lit)
garūni (acc Mk 3:6, 15:1, Mt 27:1C [but rūna 27:1], 27:7) ‘secret counsel, private
conference, confidential consultation’; cf. OS acc girūni ‘secret’, OHG girūni ‘reli-
gious ceremony; mystery’, OE gerȳne ‘mystery, sacrament’: collective to *rūnō-
(Pierce 2003) > Goth. rūna ‘mystery’ (App.); given the meanings in WGmc., garūni
imitates Gk. sum-boúlion (NWG 141); where garūni occurs, rūna means ‘mystery’
except at Mt 27:1 (Wolfe 2018b)
gaskohi (acc sg 2x) ‘pair of shoes’ (skohs* ‘shoe’) = OS giscohi /giskōhi/ ‘footwear’, OHG
giscuohi ‘id.’, OE pl ge-scȳ (VGS 200, KM 43); no certain etymology (EDPG 446)
gaþagki* ‘deliberation’, phps a backformation to þag(g)kjan (q.v. in App.); a relation to
þagks* ‘thanks’ requires an older meaning of *þanka- as ‘thought’ (NWG 144f.),
which is not unambiguously attested. OF thonk ‘thanks; satisfaction; intention’ may
be an innovation (EDPG 533)
gawairþi ‘peace, concord’, glossing Gk. eir nē ‘id.’, may be deadjectival to *gawairþs
‘facing’ (GPA 672f., NWG 128f.), but if the original meaning was ‘agreement’, the
relationship can be as in Lat. pāx ‘peace’ and pacīscī ‘negotiate, come to terms,
agree’, hence deverbal to *ga-werþ-ja- ‘reconcile, agree’; cf. Goth. ga-gawairþjan
(1Cor 7:11A) [bring together] ‘reconcile’, OHG giwerdan ‘agree, suit, please’, OE
geweorðan ‘happen, befall; agree’ (Velten 1930: 503); other hypotheses in Kauffmann
(1912) and Scardigli (1973: 126ff.)
gawaurdi* (nom pl gawaurdja 1Cor 15:33A) ‘conversation’ = OE gewyrde ‘speech;
verbosity’ (see waurd ‘word’ in App.)
gawaurki ‘acquisitiveness; business deal; acquisition’ = ON yrki ‘work’, OHG giwurki
‘effecting; structure, construction’, OE gewyrce ‘work; acquisition; profit, gain’
(deverbal to waurkjan ‘effect, perform’)
gawi (acc) ‘region, district; country, land, province’ (no inner-Germanic source) =
OE -gē ‘id.’, OF gā, gē ‘village, parish’, MHG gou, gen gouwes ‘district, county’ < Gmc.
*gauja- (< *gaw-ja-) of uncertain etymology, perhaps *ga-auja- < ga- + *How-jo-,
cf. Gk. oíē ‘village’ possibly from *How-yeh2- (NWG 133, EDPG 171)
kuni ‘clan, tribe, race, stock; generation’ (nom 6x, acc Mt 11:16 and kuni manne Bl 1r.8
‘the race of people’, dat kunja 7x incl. Bl 1r.6, gen kunjis 3x, 1 dupl, nom pl kunja
Lk 1:48) = ON kyn ‘kin; kind, sort; gender’, etc. (see kuni in App.)
8.18 -i (n -ja-) 351
word; cf. OE weddian ‘engage; wed’) < Gmc. *wad-ja- ‘pledge, surety’ [*wadh- ‘pledge’]
(AHDR 94, HGE 438) or more likely *wedh- ‘lead, marry’ (LIV 659) / *Hwedh-
(EDPG 564)
weina-basi* ‘grape’ (§7.4) = ON vínber ‘id.’, OS nom pl uuinberi (Heliand 1742CM),
OHG wīnberi ‘id.’ (Karpov 2005a: 42, 2005b: 201) (cf. OE wīnberie, wīnber(i)ge
f -jōn-) ‘id.’ (HGE 466, NWG 132) < Gmc. *wīna-bazja-, but *bazja- is not Germanic;
etym. obscure, phps. connected with Lat. fascis ‘bundle’ from a putative IE *bhas-
(EDPG 54f.)
weitwodi* supposedly means ‘testimony’, referring to the words of the witness as
opposed to weitwodei (§§8.5, 8.9), the act of testifying (Pimenova 2004b: 259f.), but
in its sole occurrence, þairh managa weitwodja (2Tim 2:2B) translates Gk. dià
pollõn martúrōn ‘through many witnesses’ (cf. Lat. per multōs testēs ‘id.’); for the
derivation, cf. weitwoþs* ‘witness’ (NWG 131, 568)
The suffix *-ye/o- in Indo-European had numerous functions. One of the most basic
was to derive a class of verbs from roots. For instance, from *(s)peḱ- was made a verb
*(s)peḱ-ye/o-: Ved. páśyati ‘sees, observes’, Lat. speciō ‘I see, observe’, etc. (MV 282ff.,
IEL 171, LIV 575f., IS 304).
One possible origin of *-yo- was adjectivalization of -i- (IEL 283, IS 419, w. lit),
e.g. in locatives: *médhi- > *médhi(y)-o- > *médh-yo- (cf. LIPP 2.498) ‘middle’ > Gk.
més(s)os, Lat. medius, etc.; cf. Gk. núx ‘night’ : mesonúktion ‘(at) midnight’. Secondary
*-yó- derived adjectives and nouns. Lat. jūdicium ‘judicial investigation; judgment’
was denom to jūdex ‘judge’ (*yewes-diḱ- ‘law say(ing)’ LSDE 48), but subject to (re)-
analysis as derived from jūdicāre ‘to judge, sentence’ (Benedetti 1988: 195), provid-
ing the path for deverbals; cf. praejūdicāre ‘prejudge’ : praejūdicium ‘prejudice’
(LSDE 72, w. lit).
The pattern of deriving especially compounded *-ye/o- neuter abstracts was of
Indo-European date; cf. Ved. admasádyam ‘(the (f)act of) sitting at the (same) table
(with someone)’ from adma-sád- [table-sit(ting)] ‘(one) sitting at the (same) table’
(Benedetti 1988: 196; cf. Heidermanns 2002: 197f.). Latin had many denominal and
deadjectival formations in -ium (LSDE 47ff.) as well as prefixed deverbals like
perjūrium ‘perjury’ derived from perjūrāre ‘swear falsely’ (Johansson 1904: 473, 483;
LSDE 73ff.).
A subclass of *-yo- derivatives consisted of *-tyo- > Gmc. *-þja-. For the IE type,
cf. Lat. servitium ‘slavery, the slave class’ derived from servus ‘servile, slave’ (LSDE
49). For Gothic, Casaretto (2004: 476–9) records only four examples, e.g. niþjis
‘relative, kinsman’, for which the standard connection to Ved. nítya- ‘one’s own’ is
rejected by Kroonen in favor of *net- (Gmc. *neþan-) ‘offer protection’ (EDPG
388), but Dunkel motivates 1.*ní-tyo- ‘internally; one’s own’ (LIPP 2.233; cf. LHE2
116, 144).
8.19 History of Gothic -i 353
Gmc. *-ja- continued the IE masculine and neuter *-yo- formations in the same
morphological categories. It was most productive in forming neuter abstracts from
adjectives and nouns. Also, *-ja- was one standard way of deriving new compounds
(NCG 244), e.g. Goth. gud-blostreis ‘worshipper of God’, silba-siuneis* ‘eye witness’,
silba-wiljis* ‘volunteer’ (§7.7).
Among *-ja- derivatives is the masc type Goth. harjis ‘army’ (< *kór-yo- ‘detached;
detachment’ LHE2 76, 115, 144; cf. Meid 1964: 254, EDPG 211), ragineis ‘counselor,
advisor’, denom to ragin (n) ‘opinion, judgment, advice, consent, decree’. Casaretto
(2004: 114–21) lists 8 denominals, 2 deverbals, 4 compounds, and 4 borrowings.
Feminine *-jō- stems (22 examples in NWG 150–7) include Goth. halja ‘hell’; cf. ON
Hel ‘goddess of death’ / hel ‘abode of the dead’, OE hel / helle, OS (gen etc.) hellia
(and m/f acc, dat hell), OHG hella < *hal-jō-, to the IE root *ḱel- ‘cover, conceal’
(Velten 1930: 491; Laird 1940: 45–9; NWG 151; EDPG 204); cf. huljan ‘to cover’ (§5.15).
Adjectives in *-yo- were among the most frequent in PIE, and many examples are
found throughout this work. One that seems to have been regional within Indo-
European is the word for ‘new’: *né/ówiyo- (Rigvedic trisyllabic návyas, Lith. naũjas,
etc.) in contrast to the simpler *néw-o- (Gk. néos, Lat. novus, etc.). Germanic reflects
the former in *neuja- > Goth. niujis etc. (q.v. in App.).
With the prefix ga-, Gmc. *-ja- made sociatives like Goth. galigri*: us ainamma
galigrja (Rom 9:10A) ‘from one lying together’ (cf. ligrs* ‘bed, mat’, dat pl ligram
Rom 13:13A ‘sleeping around’, gen pl ligre ‘dining couches’), and collectives of the
German type Gebirge ‘mountain range’ (OHG gibirgi, derived from berg ‘mountain’),
or OHG gifildi = OE gefilde ‘Gefilde’ (field), OS giwādi = OE gewæde ‘clothing’ (wād),
etc. (Wilmanns 1896: 241f.; KM 43f., 72).
Sociatives and collectives could be made with other suffixes as well, sometimes to
nonverbal roots, e.g. ga-juk (Lk 2:24 acc) ‘pair, couple’ (juk* ‘yoke, pair’), ga-man ‘fel-
low man, partner’ to manna ‘human being, man’ (Wilmanns 1896: 207; Kluge 1911: 97;
Kotin 2012: 392). Gaman means both ‘partner’ (Lk 5:7, 2Cor 8:23A/B, Philem 17) and
‘fellowship’: gaman ahmins weihis (2Cor 13:13A/B) ‘communication of the holy spirit’,
where ‘partner(ing)’ could fit metaphorically.
‘Joined together’ underlies 1.ga-juko (f -n- voc 2Cor 6:14A/B) ‘companion’
(NWG 226) and 2.ga-juko (f -n-) ‘parable’. The latter may calque Gk. parabol
[a casting beside] ‘id.’ (Kind 1901: 15), but it also translates paroimíā ‘proverb, maxim’
(Jn 10:6, 16:25), and may be an earlier calque on Gk. suzugíā [a yoking together]
‘pair(ing)’ (Scardigli 1973: 103; NWG 238). For other words for ‘parable’, see
Weinhold (1870: 18).
Of the five Gothic collectives in Kluge (1911: 97) and NWG 141f., at least gaskalki
(Col 1:7B, 4:7A/B) ‘fellow servant’ (skalks ‘servant, slave’) is sociative (Wilmanns 1896:
240), and gawaurdi* ‘conversation’ is more sociative than collective. That leaves
gaminþi ‘memory’, garūni ‘secret counsel, private conference’, and gaskohi ‘pair of
shoes’ (sg translates Greek pl but note underived pl skohe Mk 1:7 ‘of shoes’).
Another possible collective is lausa-waurdi* ‘empty verbiage, empty words’ (differ-
ently NWG 141).
354 Nominal derivation
agis, gen sg agisis, dat sg, nom pl agisa (n -a-) ‘fear’ at divine visitations and miracles
as manifestations of divine power (Carlson 2012); cf. ON agi (m) ‘awe, terror’, OE
ege (m -i-) ‘fear, horror, dread’, eg(e)sa (m -n-) ‘id.’, OS egiso* (m -n-) ‘fear, horror,
terror’, OHG agiso, egiso (m -n-), egisa (f) ‘terror’; Goth. agis < PGmc. ?*agaz/*agis-
< IE *h2égh-os / ?*h2(e)gh-és- ‘emotional distress’ [*h2egh- ‘be afraid’ LIV 257]; cf.
Gk. ákhos ‘pain, grief ’ (VG 591, 593, HGE 3, Stüber 2002: 93f., NWG 559, EIE 115,
EDPG 4, LHE2 110, 149)
hatis (n -a-) ‘directed anger’ (Regan 1972: 181): dat hatiza, irreg gen sg barna hatis
(Eph 2:3B) ‘children of wrath’, gen pl MS A hatize (Sturtevant 1949: 139f.). For the
-es- stem cf. denom hatizon* ‘be irate with’. Relatives include ON hatr (n -a-)
‘hatred, enmity’, OS (dat) heti (m -i-) ‘hatred, hostility’, OHG haz (m -a-) ‘hatred’,
OE hete (m -i-) ‘hatred; enmity; malice, spite’ < Gmc. *hatiz- ‘hatred’ < IE ?*ḱh2d-és-
[*ḱeh2d- ‘be stirred up, roused’ LIV 319]; cf. Doric Gk. kãdos ‘care, sorrow’
(Stüber 2002: 114f., 200, NWG 561, EDPG 214)
rimis* (n -a-) ‘quietness’: only miþ rimisa (2Thess 3:12) ‘with quiet demeanor’
(Woodhouse 2000a: 196f.) < Gmc. *rimiz-, earlier *remiz- ‘quiet, tranquility’ [*h1rem-
‘be(come) quiet’ LIV 252f.] (HGE 302, NWG 561, EDPG 409)
riqis (n -a-) ‘darkness’ (3x + 1 acc) ~ riqiz (4x), gen riqizis, dat riqiza = ON røk(k)r
(n -a-) ‘twilight’ < PGmc. *rekwaz-, *rikwiz-23 [*h1régwos, *h1régwes- ‘darkness’; no
verbal root]; cf. Gk. érebos ‘darkness of the underworld’ (cf. Stüber 2002: 180, NWG
565, EDPG 409, LHE2 110, 120); -z- also occurs in denom riqizjan* (3sg riqizeiþ
Mk 13:24) ‘grow dark’ consistent with accented -yá- in Vedic denominals; cf.
riqizeins* ‘dark(ened)’, for which -z- is proper whether the suffix is *-īno- or *-einó-
(Brugmann 1906: 275–7, HGE 301)
sigis (n -a-) ‘victory’ = ON sigr (m -a-), OE sigor (m -a-), sige (m -i-), OS sigi-drohtin
[victory-lord] ‘God’, OHG sigu, sigi (m -u-/-i-) < PGmc. ?*segaz, *sigiz- ‘victory’
< PIE *séǵhos, *séǵhes- ‘control, power’ [*seǵh- ‘overpower’ LIV 516f.]; cf. Skt. sáhas-
‘power, victory’ (Stüber 2002: 145ff., NWG 562, EDPG 430, LHE2 110, 151)
22 Not all words in -isa belong here. For instance, walisa* ‘genuine, beautiful’ is formally a comparative
*we/alizōn (Bammesberger 1980); cf. ON vild(a)ri ‘more pleasant, better’, derived from *we/alōn-
(Goth. waila, OE wel) ‘well’ (GG 82, 124). There is also nom/voc pl þewisa (Col 3:22B) ‘servants’ from
þewis* (n, -a-) (NWG 60). Also excluded here is dat sg swartiza ‘ink’ (2Cor 3:3A), likely an error for
swartizla (MS B) if the stem is *swart-izla- (Bernharðsson 2001: 66; NWG 409); see swarts* ‘black’ in App.
23 Ringe (2017: 111) argues that the labiovelars persisted into Germanic and that kw clusters fell
together with them.
8.20–1 -is (n -a-), -a (-an-), -o (n -in/on-, f -on-) 355
As to history, the PIE *-es- neuters are among the best established, e.g. *ǵénh1-os
‘stock, family’ > Gk. génos, Ved. jánas-, Lat. genus (Meissner 2006: 45; EDL 260). The
suffix was used for deriving nouns from a variety of lexical categories. It often coex-
isted with an adjective in *-u-; cf. Gk. aipús ‘high’ beside aĩpos ‘steep height’ (Meissner,
p. 48). In Greek the génos ‘origin’ type was well represented, with some 400 nouns
attested. In Germanic by contrast, this type is residual at best.
There is little agreement on the nature of *-es- stems in Indo-European. Woodhouse
(2000a: 189–200) argues that they had radical accent in some forms and accented suf-
fixal *-és- in others. Ringe (2017: 57, 74) posits constant radical accent. For Stüber (2002)
neuter s- stems were either acrostatic or proterokinetic (§8.2). Meissner (2006) argues
for a remnant of proterokinetic -s- stems (against which see Kiparsky 2010), and Klein
(2013) for a shift from proterokinetic to acrostatic. Lundquist & Yates (2017: 3.1) posit
a preaccenting morpheme: ´ -es-. What is undeniable is that there were noun–adjective
alternations like Ved. ápas- ‘work’ : apás- ‘active’ (VG 98, 585–606). On the other
hand, the s/z alternation mostly obeys Thurneysen’s Law (Suzuki 2018).
Germanic generalized the vocalism of the oblique cases and reassigned the *-es-
stems to the -i- or productive -a- class (NWG 132, 555; Thöny 2013: 95–9). For an -i-
stem see wini- ‘friend’ in the Appendix. For thematization, cf. Goth. riqis : gen riqizis
‘darkness’.
The suffixal *-o- grade of the nominative is supposedly preserved in the Finnish
loanword lammas ‘sheep’ (e.g. Woodhouse 2000a: 189–200; Meissner 2006: 54; LHE
292). For those who accept lammas as a Gothic loan because of the meaning ‘sheep’ vs.
*lambiz- ‘lamb’ in Northwest Germanic (e.g. NWG 83; cf. EDPG 325), there are two
problems: (i) Goth. lamb (acc) also means ‘lamb’: acc pl lamba (Lk 10:3) = Gk. árnas
(Hruby 1911: 22); (ii) Goth. lamb was a neuter -a- stem and therefore never had the
ending *-az that supposedly survived in Finn. lammas.
Lamb is generally reconstructed as an *-es- stem (cf. Klein 2013). In West Germanic
there are no unequivocal residues of -r- in the singular. Rare forms like dat lomber
(Guthlac) can involve analogy with the plural or other words of the class. In light of
the total agreement for a neuter -a- stem across Germanic in the singular (Goth., ON,
Far., OS, OHG, OF, OE lamb), it is likely that lamb was originally an -a- stem that got
secondarily reassigned (and only in part) to the -z/r- stems in West Germanic (cf. VGS
54), where it was analogized to other animal words. This is confirmed by OS acc pl
lamb and an Old High German gloss with gen pl lampo ‘of lambs’, a residual -a- stem
(cf. Schlerath 1995: 257; Casaretto 2000: 235; NWG 83; Adamczyk 2011, 2012;
Thöny 2013: 38, 82f.).
nouns identified as belonging to the -an- class (NWG 212–48). Following is a small
sample:
ara* ‘eagle’ = ON ari (m) ‘id.’, OHG aro (m) ‘id.’; cf. with the oblique stem OE earn
‘eagle’, OHG arn < Gmc. *ar-an- / *ar-n- < PIE *h3ér-ō, gen *h3r-n-é/ós, acc *h3ér-
on-m (preserved best in Hitt. and Gmc.); cf. Hitt. hāraš, gen hāranaš, acc hāranan
‘eagle’; Gk. órnīs ‘bird’ (Rieken 2004: 283ff., 288; EDHIL 301f.; Mottausch 2011:
60f.; EDG 1106; EDPG 32; Thöny 2013: 197–203; LHE2 89); inaccurate *h2ér-(o)n-
(e.g. VG 521, NWG 217)
arbja ‘heir’ = OHG arb/peo, erb(e)o ‘id.’, OE ierfa/e ‘id.’ < Gmc. *arbj-an- (NWG 255f.),
derived from arbi (n -ja-) ‘inheritance’ (NWG 129f.), from dialectal IE *h3orbh-(i)
yo-Hon- ‘provided with an inheritance’ (for the suffix, see Weiss 2006: 257f.;
Neri 2016: 33; and §8.22 below, with other suggested reconstructions)
auhsa* ‘ox’ (§3.3) = ON uxi, oxi, OS *ohso (e.g. osse-herde ‘oxherd’), OHG ohso, OF, OE
oxa ‘ox’ < Gmc. *uhs-an- < IE *h2uks-é/ón- [*h2weks- ‘grow’ LIV 288f.]; cf. Ved.
ukṣán- ‘young bull’, TochB okso ‘ox’ (EWAia 1.210, 2.486f., NWG 217, EDPG 558,
LHE2 149)
guma ‘male (human being), man’ = ON gumi ‘id.’ (poetic), OS gumo, gomo ‘man, opti-
mate’, OHG gomo ‘id.’, OF (breid-)goma ‘(bride)groom’, OE guma ‘man; human
being’ < Gmc. *gum-an- < IE *(dh)ǵh(e)m-ón- ‘one on earth, earthling’ [*dhéǵhōm
‘earth’] cf. OL hemon-, Lat. homō ‘human being’ (IEL 216f., NWG 222, IS 351f., LSDE
64, EDPG 195)
hana [singing, singer] ‘rooster’ = ON hani, OS, OHG hano, OF hona, OE hana ‘id.’
< Gmc. *han-an- < *kán-on- [*kan- / *kh2n- ‘sing’ (verbal root only Italic and
Celtic)]; cf. Lat. canere ‘to sing’ (KM 90f., LIV 342f., HGE 161, NWG 219, EDL 88,
EDPG 207)
skula ‘debtor; obligated person; guilty person, culprit’24 < Gmc. *skul-an- (see skula
in App.)
Forty-three feminine -o (-ōn-) formations are recorded for Gothic (NWG 212–48),
like arbjo (1Cor 15:50A/B) ‘heiress’ (Rabofski 1990: 26) and the following:
mizdo ‘reward’ = OS mēda* (mieda, mede, etc.) ‘(means of) payment, wages, bonus’,
OHG mēta / miata ‘id.’, OE mēd ‘reward, pay, salary’ (Anglian meord, meard) < Gmc.
*mizd-ōn-, an -n- stem extension of IE *mis-dhh1-eh2- or more simply *misdhó-
(LHE2 121); cf. Gk. misthós ‘reward, recompense, pay, wages’ (see Saussure apud
24 The literal meaning is ‘owing (one), ower’, which survives in several constructions, e.g. skula dauþaus
ist (Mt 26:66C) ‘he is owing of death’ (§4.18). Sometimes it is equivalent to 3sg skal ‘owes’, e.g. skula ist all
witoþ taujan (Gal 5:3B) ‘he is owing/obligated/obliged to keep the entire law’ (cf. Berard 1993a: 96). In one
passage skula + be functions as a ditransitive verb: þuk silban mis skula is (Philem 19) ‘you are owing
yourself to me’ for Gk. seautón moi prosopheíleis (Lat. tēipsum mihi dēbēs) ‘you owe me yourself ’. Compare
the German adj schuldig in this construction daß du dich selbst mir schuldig bist ‘id.’ (Pausch 1954: 61),
and see the discussion in Alcamesi (2009: 10f.). Agentives make adjectives in many languages, e.g. Lat.
victrīcem classem (Livy 21.41) ‘victorious fleet’, lit. ‘victor [f] fleet’ (Luraghi 2014:226).
8.22 History of the -n- stems 357
Rousseau 2009: 495; NWG 229f., NIL 492f., EDPG 370, Thöny 2013: 100); for the
semantic shift from ‘reward, prize (for an achievement)’ to ‘wage(s) for labor’, see
Polomé (1995: 245, w. lit)
qino ‘woman, wife’ = ON kona ‘id.’, etc. (NWG 230) (see qino in App.)
tuggo ‘tongue’ = ON tunga ‘tongue; language’, OS tunga ‘tongue; speech’, OHG zunga
‘id.’, OE tunge ‘tongue; speech; language’ < Gmc. *tung-ōn-, an -n- extension of IE
*dnǵh-wéh2- (cf. OL dingua ‘tongue’) (Saussure apud Rousseau 2009: 495;
Normier 1977: 182; GED 349; MUN 175; NWG 230; EDL 343; EDPG 526f.; De Vaan
& Kroonen 2016: 317f.; LHE2 110, 112)
Some neuters had the same nominative (and accusative) as the feminines, but the
stem was different. In contrast to e.g. tuggo ‘tongue’ (Lk 1:64), gen sg tuggons (Mk
7:35), probably assimilated to the -n- stem body parts (Pronk 2015: 340), the oblique
stem of augo ‘eye’ was augin-, but nom-acc pl augona. Compare the paradigm of the
weak adjective (§3.6). Gothic had no fewer than six neuters of this type, all connected
with body parts (NWG 212–48, Kroonen 2011: 38f.). Examples include:
augo ‘eye’ = ON auga ‘eye; hole in a needle’, etc., from *h3ekw-n-, an old singulative
contrasting with the dual *h3ekw-ih1 in Gk. ósse ‘eyes’ (see augo in App.)
auso ‘ear’ = ON eyra, etc.
hairto ‘heart’ = ON hjarta ‘heart; mind, feeling’, etc. (NWG 229); since hearts do not
come in pairs, the -n- stem in Germanic (see hairto in App.) may be a secondary
assimilation to other body parts, especially since the compound arma-hairts* ‘mer-
ciful’ does not have -n- (Pronk 2015: 340)
The heterogeneous -n- stems in IE have a variety of forms and functions. In forma-
tions from verbal roots or root nouns, one common derivative denotes the indi-
vidual characterized by the base word, e.g. Lat. bibō ‘drunkard’ (bibere ‘to drink’),
edō ‘glutton’ = OHG ezzo ‘eater’ (cf. Lat. edere ‘to eat’), Ved. rajā ‘ruler, king’ < *h3réǵ-ōn
(cf. Lat. regere ‘to rule’), Goth. un-wita (m) ‘un-knowing one; ignoramus’ (cf. wait
‘knows’).
Several *-ōn- suffixes may have partially fallen together. The characterizing
meaning occurs in Lat. Nāsō ‘Big-nose’ (nāsus ‘nose’ Woodhouse 2011b), Gk. Marath n
‘having fennel (márathon)’, Strábōn ‘Squinter’ (strabós ‘squinting’), etc., explained by the
so-called Hoffmann suffix (Hoffmann 1955a) *-h1(o)n- or*-h3(o)n- (e.g. Schaffner 2015)
or just *-hxon- (MPIE 2.4.2). Olsen (2004, 2006) analyzes the Hoffmann suffix as an
original compound of *h3onh2- ‘burden’ (cf. Lat. onus ‘load, burden’, also reconstructed
*h3en-os EDL 428, *h1enh3- Neri 2009: 9), e.g. Lat. Nāsō ‘burdened with a (conspicuous)
nose’ (Olsen 2004: 216f., 238), rejected by Kroonen (2011: 35) as ad hoc. This formative
has potential explanatory value for denominals denoting a load, mass, or place: Gk. gai n
358 Nominal derivation
́
‘heap of earth’, hipp n ‘place for horses’ < ?*(h1)ekwo-h3ónh2- (Olsen 2004: 230f., 237f.).
Olsen interprets Lat. legiōn- ‘legion’ as ‘a group of people selected’ (p. 239); cf. Gk. ag n
[Hom.] ‘assembly; contest; games’ (lit. ‘load of actants brought (together)’). On this
account, Gk. Marath n is literally ‘place overgrown with fennel’ (Olsen 2004: 230, 232).
Deadjectival formations have an individualizing function, e.g. Lat. Rūfō ‘(the) Red’,
a cognomen singling out someone as ‘redhaired’ (rūfus ‘red’), Catō ‘the sly/smart’
(catus ‘sly’), etc., OS, OHG bero ‘bear’ (if to Lith. beŕ as ‘brown’ HGE 43, but phps
< *ǵhwér- ‘wild animal’ LHE2 128), etc. (KM 92f.; Heinrichs 1954: 63ff.; Hajnal 1997:
43). Compare ‘substantivized’ weak adjectives in Germanic, e.g. Goth. nom pl twai
blindans (Mk 9:27) ‘two blind (ones/men)’, dat sg þaim blindin (Jn 9:6) ‘to the blind
(one/man)’ (NWG 245). The feminine is an -ōn- stem, as in Goth. so blindo ‘the blind
(one)’ (§3.6; KM 92f.).
Early Germanic tribal names with the Hoffmann suffix include Gutones, Saxones,
Herminones, Ingvaeones, Semnones, Burgundiones, etc. (Schaffner 2015: 157).
The functions of the -n- stems may go back to a PIE singulative (Pronk 2015).
A singulative is a morphologically characterized singular that denotes a single instance
of something that normally occurs in larger numbers. Gothic -n- stem kaurno sinapis
(Mk 4:31, Lk 17:6) ‘a (single) grain of mustard seed’, kaurno aiteis (Jn 12:24) ‘a (single)
kernel of wheat’, contrasts with -a- stem kaurn ‘grain’ (cf. Thöny 2013: 155). Pronk
argues that this accounts for the use with persons (Lat. Catō ‘the clever one’), body
parts (Goth. augo ‘eye’, i.e. one of a pair), and is the basis of the individualizing
function.
The characterizing or individualizing -n- stem has been held in various forms since
Meyer (1863: 66–9) and especially Osthoff (1876) to underlie the Germanic weak
adjective (overviews in Schaffner 2005: §1.4; Fobbe 2006; Kim 2008), e.g. Goth. sa
liuba ‘the beloved’ (§3.10). Early Germanic had name-epithet phrases, like ON Hálfdan
svarti ‘Halfdan the Black’, Óláfr rauði ‘Olaf the Red’, etc. (Delbrück 1909: 192), later
with article, e.g. Atli inn skami ‘Atli the Short’, Gormr inn gamli ‘Gorm the Old’.25
Note also OHG Ludouuig ther snello ‘Ludwig the quick’ (Otfrid), Hluduīg ther guoto
‘Ludwig the good’ (Ludwigslied), etc. (cf. Heinrichs 1954: 35f.; VG 273f., 531; Harbert
2007: 132f.).
Beside Goth. Lazarus sa dauþa (Jn 12:1) ‘Lazarus the dead’ is the type Barteimaiaus
[sic] blinda (Mk 10:46) for Gk. Bartímaios ho tuphlós ‘Bartimaeus the blind’ (Delbrück
1909: 191). Blinda is reasonably interpreted as ‘a blind man’; cf. Vet. Lat. (cod. Vercellensis
25 In Nordic the ending of the nominative singular was replaced by -i from the *-jan stems (Nielsen 1995:
118–21; Syrett 2002: 721; LHE2 307). The replacement was late because -i does not trigger umlaut; cf. oxi,
uxi ‘ox’, hani ‘rooster’, etc. Alternatively, ON generalized *-ēn while the rest of Germanic generalized *-ōn
(e.g. Kroonen 2011: 35, Harðarson 2017: 918). This is implausible because (i) *-ēn was marginal in
Germanic (Thöny 2013: 72f.); (ii) it should not have displaced the frequent nom -o (ibid.), (iii) *ē1 should
not have yielded final -i (ibid.), (iv) this does not account for the actor suffix -ari in which the nominative
has -i from the -jan stems (§8.30), (v) even if -i was the proper phonetic reflex, which is most unlikely
(LHE2 307), the lack of umlaut requires critical ordering of i- umlaut before *-ēn became -i, for which
there is no evidence in runic texts; (vi) -an- and -jan- stems alternate (Kluge 1926: 8), and (vii) Nordic *-ōn
is also verified by the Finnish loan mako ‘stomach’ (Szemerényi 1960a: 157–64).
8.23 -ja (-jan-) 359
a/3 VL 1970: 99) quīdam caecus ‘a certain blind (man)’, and the Lithuanian translation
of Mk 10:49 has neregys ‘a blind man’ (Ratkus 2018b).
Braunmüller (2008) proposes that the functions of *-an- (uniqueness, identifica-
tion, individualization, etc.) were lost (by contact), prompting the use of deictic
words, but (i) changes parallel to the ‘weak’ adjectives did not entail articles elsewhere,
e.g. Lat. tenuis ‘thin’ < *tenh2wi- ‘the thin one’, formed like Avestan tiγri- ‘arrow’
(lit. ‘the sharp thing’) to tiγra- ‘sharp’, etc. (Melchert et al. 2014: 260f.; cf. Nussbaum 2014:
304ff.), and (ii) the other IE languages of Europe had developed articles, inviting an
areal feature account (Miller 2012: 221, w. lit).
The *h3onh2- element was invoked to explain weak nom sg m -o of the adjective in
Old High German (e.g. Hajnal 1997: 45ff.), but a better reconstruction is *-o-h3(o)n-
(Schaffner 2015: 179f.); cf. gen pl *-(o-)ohxom (?) > OHG tago ‘of days’ etc. (Ringe 2017:
51f., 91; cf. Yoshida 2012; Thöny 2013: 232, 236f.), formerly *-o-om (IS 332).
26 Derivationally gudja is ‘one (permanently) connected to a god (guþ)’ (Üçok 1938: 66ff.; cf. NWG
258). In terms of the pre-Christian religion, it denoted one ‘active in the service of the gods’, even though
in the Gothic texts it is used only of Jewish priests or chief priests, but no references to heathen priests are
preserved in the Gothic corpus (Laird 1940: 57f.).
360 Nominal derivation
wife’, OS gi-beddio* (nom pl gibeddeon) (m) ‘bedmate’, MHG ge-bette ‘wife, bedmate’
(HGE 32).
As in the case of -an- formations, there are abstract nouns in -jan-, of which one of
the few to occur in Gothic and other Germanic languages is the following:
wilja (m -n-) ‘will; wish, desire; intention’ = ON vili ‘will, wish, desire; delight’, etc.
(see App.)
Germanic *-jan- stems go back to the *-e/on- suffix on *-y- bases. The secondary fem-
inine in *-jōn- may be different from *-i-h3ónh2-, the possible source of *-jōn- (§8.24).
Although the two are combined by Casaretto (2004: 249ff.) and others, Latin had two
kinds of -iōn- nouns. One was the deverbal type commūniō ‘mutual participation; asso-
ciation’, opīniō ‘supposition; belief; opinion’, re(l)ligiō ‘religious awe; superstition; reli-
gion’ (LSDE 75f.). The other was the denominal type *-h3onh2- with a possessive or
characterizing meaning, e.g. decuriō ‘decurion’ (commanding officer of a decuria, squad
of ten), or with *-i-h3ónh2- (Lat. -iōn-) Frankish Latin campiō ‘warrior; gladiator’ > OFr.
champion [1080 Roland] ‘one who fights on a closed plain’ (Lat. campus, OFr. c(h)amp)
(LSDE 75f., based on Olsen 2004, 2006). Only the first type is relevant to this section.
raþjo ‘counting, account, explanation, number’ (Regan 1972: 83ff.) = OS rethia* (dat
rethiu) ‘account’, OHG red(e)a ‘account, reasoning, speech’ < Gmc. *raþjōn- = Lat.
ratiō ‘calculation; account; reason(ing)’ [*Hreh1- EDL 520 = *reh1- ‘reckon, count’
LIV 499]; neither Gmc. *raþjōn- nor Lat. ratiō is clear (GED 281f., HGE 298, NWG
262f., EDPG 405f.) but *Hrh1-ti-h3ónh2- ‘collectivity of reckoning’ can work for
both (for reconstructions close to this, cf. Lühr 2000a: 50, LSDE 266), although a
secondary n- stem enlargement of *raþjō[+n]- is perhaps more likely (VG 374f.;
Schaffner 2005: 283)
sakjo* ‘dispute, argument, quarrel’ = OHG secchia, secka ‘strife’, OE sæcc ‘strife, con-
test, conflict, battle’ < Gmc. *sak-jōn-, derived from *sakan- ‘charge’ (Goth. sakan
‘be quarrelsome; dispute; reprimand’ (GED 292, Schubert 1968: 37, NWG 255,
EDPG 423)
This class is not to be confused with f *-jō, as in WGmc. *han(n)-jō ‘hen’ > OHG
henna, OE hæn, hen ‘hen’ (HGE 161, EDPG 207).
Given the possibility that *-i-h3ónh2- / *-i-h3nh2-ós (with the replacement of the
‘Hoffmann suffix’ §8.23) underlies both Gmc. *-īn- (§8.5) and *-jōn-, the meaning
8.25 -ing-/-ung- (m -a-) and -l-ing- 361
of some of the latter can be straightforwardly explained, e.g. Goth. sakjo* ‘dispute,
argument, quarrel’ (lit. a ‘load of utterances’), garunjo* ‘inundation, deluge, flood’,
gatimrjo ‘a building’ (cf. timrja, OHG zimbaro ‘carpenter’), etc. (Olsen 2004: 239).
Casaretto (2004: 265) considers gatimrjo a backformation, but (ibid. 254) sees garunjo*
as a primary derivative.
27 The Panegyricus Genethliacus composed in 291 to honor the emperor Maximian mentions the
Tervingi as a pars alia Gothōrum (§17.1) ‘another group of Goths’ (cf. Curta 2005b: 176; Kulikowski 2007:
31). Ammianus Marcellinus (Res Gestae 31.5.1) says the Tervingi were fatefully admitted into the Roman
empire in 376. But he also labels Athanaric as both Greutungus and Tervingus (Christensen 2002: 211,
227). Christensen concludes that the distinction between Greutungus and Tervingus was unclear. The
Tervingi were also known as Vesi (Liebeschuetz 2011: 195). The Latin sources of these names are docu-
mented in Wrede (1891: 20f., 49f.) and Liebeschuetz (2011: 215). Both argue (w. lit) that the Greutungi
and the Ostrogoths were the same. The Tervingi have been identified with the Vesi (e.g. Wolfram 1975:
301, w. lit; see Liebeschuetz 2011).
362 Nominal derivation
From *skilling-, *-ling- came to be used in some areas for money, e.g. OHG silabar-
ling (Germ. Silberling) ‘piece of silver’ vs. OE silfring ‘id.’, OS dat sg helflinga ‘far-
thing’, acc pl hallingas ‘obolus’, etc. (Kluge 1926: §100a).
The usual reconstruction is IE *-e-n-ḱ/kó- > Gmc. *-inga-, and *-n-ḱ/kó - > *-unga-
(KM 206f.; VG 530; Schaffner 2005: 332–8; 2015: 165ff., 172). There are no precise com-
parisons. The agentive function of Lithuanian denominals like darbiniñkas ‘worker’
(darbas ‘work’) is absent in Germanic, where denominal tribal or patronymic nouns,
titles, animal names, and concretes from thematic adjectives predominate. Note,
however, Gaul. Arucanci derived from the river name Arura (Meid 1965: 230).
For -l-ing-, the philological tradition (see NWG 575) compared the Latin type
homunculus ‘puny person, manikin’, which is a diminutive from *he/omon-ke-lo-
(LSDE 59, 64; Balles 2008: 40f.).
The suffix alternants became productive in Germanic (some 2300 entries in
Munske 1964), outside Gothic, which has indirect evidence of only a few masculine
formations.
8.26 -areis
Gothic -areis makes mostly personal nouns from nouns and verbs (Buckalew 1964: 83).
An inherited *-ārija- is unmotivated (pace Gąsiorowski 2017) beside PGmc. *-ārija-
from Latin -ārius (< *-ās-(i)yo- LSDE 141, w. lit), which was used for actor nominals
‘one connected with’, e.g. argentārius ‘silver-worker’ (argentum ‘silver’). Gothic favors
it in technical formations, like bokareis ‘scribe’, prompted by Lat. librārius ‘writer’
from liber ‘book’ (Velten 1930: 494). Goth. wullareis ‘fuller’ (wulla* ‘wool’) may be
modeled on Lat. lānārius to lāna ‘wool’ (Bréal 1889: 690; NWG 425f.), even if wool
carding was known to the Goths (pace Sturtevant 1951: 55).
Hirt (1932: 6) expresses surprise that the Gothic -arja- formations were not bor-
rowed but built on native monosyllabic bases (on daimonareis, see below). Consider
8.26 -areis 363
motareis (Lk 18:10, 11, 13) ‘tax-collector’, which natively renders Gk. tel nēs and does
not borrow LL te/olōnārius. It is denominal to mot-a ‘tax, toll, customs duty’.28 Other
forms: acc motari (Lk 5:27), pl nom motarjos (6x), gen motarje (4x), dat motarjam
(4x), acc motarjans* (written motarjos Ver 19:30 k19 v30).
Of the eight Gothic -areis formations (Weber 1991: 117f.; NWG 425ff.; cf. Schubert
1968: 14f.), the following are represented outside of Gothic:29
bokareis ‘clerk, scribe’, Naples deed 3, 4 ‘amanuensis, writer, copyist’ (Scardigli 1973:
161, 286ff.), derived from boka ‘letter’, pl ‘letters; book’ (see boka in App.) = OS
bōkari* (nom sg buokari, dat pl bocherion) ‘id.’, OHG buohhari, puachari ‘id.’, OE
bōcere ‘scribe, writer, author’ (Sütterlin 1887: 82; Velten 1930: 494; NWG 425)
laisareis ‘teacher’ = OF -lērari, OHG lērari < *lais/z-arja- (GED 225f., NWG 426f.; for
the derivation, see below; for the etymology, see laisjan in App.)
liuþareis* (nom pl liuþarjos Neh 7:1, 44) ‘singer’ = OHG liudari ‘id.’, denom to
*leuþa- (Goth. awi-liuþ ‘thanks(giving)’ §7.4, OHG liod ‘song’), or deverb to
Goth. liuþon* ‘sing (praises)’, OHG liudōn ‘sing’ (Aston 1958: 8; GED 237, HGE
243, NWG 425f.)
sokareis ‘inquisitor, investigator’ (1Cor 1:20A) = OHG suohhari ‘id.’, besuochare ‘tester,
tempter’ (Sütterlin 1887: 93), derived from *sōkjan- ‘seek’ (Goth. sokjan App.)
waggareis* (m) [unlikely waggari* (n)] (only dat sg waggarja Mk 4:38) ‘(cylindrical)
pillow, (cheek/head) cushion’ = OHG wangari (m), OE wangere (m) ‘id.’, denom to
*wangō(n)- ‘cheek’: ON vangi (m) (upper part of the cheek), OS wanga* (n) (dat sg
uuangun etc.), OHG wanga (n), OE wange (Wilmanns 1896: 291; GED 386, HGE
447, NWG 426)
28 This word has been variously considered a borrowing from ML mūta ‘tax, customs duty’ (Capitularia
regum Francorum [c9]), e.g. by Du Cange (Vol. 5, s.v. mūta), Francovich Onesti (2011: 202), or a
Germanic loan into ML (deemed unlikely in GED 259; cf. NWG 424, 426). Both possibilities are listed in
HGE 274. On the one hand, LL words connected with mūtāre ‘(ex)change’ acquire more pecuniary
meanings (cf. DELL 756), e.g. mūtātiō [c3m] ‘barter’, mūtātūra [c5m] ‘change (of money)’. On the other, it
must be explained how a c9 Latin word found its way into the Gothic corpus. Evidently the word existed
earlier in VL but was not attested. This suggests that OHG mūta ‘telōnēum’ (GGS 46, w. lit) was likely also
from ML.
29 The quantity of the *-a- in Goth. -areis is unclear (pace Rousseau 2016: 621, who assumes -āreis).
A long vowel (for any reason) would motivate bokareis and not *bokarjis < *-ărja- (Erdmann 1972: 412).
In the rest of Germanic, *-a- was mostly short except in Old High German, where it was variable, some-
times long in Notker (-âre ~ -are), -ari beside -eri in Tatian, usually -ari but also -eri, -iri in Otfrid, and -eri
in Isidor (Wilmanns 1896: 283; cf. NWG 423). ON -ari reflects the Nordic treatment as an -an- stem,
hence the replacement of the nominative by -i from the -jan stems (Strid 2002: 739, w. lit). Besides the
form from *-āri(us), Old West Nordic/Old Gotlandic attests *-ări- in dómeri = dómari ‘judge’, etc. (ibid.).
364 Nominal derivation
derived from liuþ* ‘song (of praise)’ (dat sg liuþa Bl 2r.16) = OHG liod (Germ.
Lied) ‘song’, but note Goth. liuþon* (1sg liuþo Rom 15:9C) ‘sing (praises)’ (cf. Cluver
1968: 5).
An apparently early deverbal agentive is Goth. sokareis (1Cor 1:20A) ‘inquisitor,
disputer, debater’ (Gk. suzētēt s ‘id.’), OHG suohhari ‘id.’, derived from *sōkjan-
(Goth. sokjan, OHG suohhen ‘seek’).
If Hirt was right that -arja- forms were not borrowed, Goth. daimonareis (Mt 4x,
Lk 1x) ‘one possessed by an evil spirit’ must have been recreated from a Gothic
(Germanic?) base *daimōn- (Wilmanns 1896: 290).30 Nouns in -areis are nowhere else
triggered by an equivalent formation, and there is no reason to think that the Vorlage
had forms of Gk. daimoniários*. Extant versions have participles: sg nom daimonareis
(Lk 8:36) renders Gk. daimonistheís ‘(having been) possessed by a demon’ (aor pass
participle), acc daimonari (Mt 9:32) translates Gk. daimonizómenon ‘being possessed
by a demon’ (PrP), as also for pl nom daimonarjos (Mt 8:28), acc daimonarjans
(Mt 8:16, 33). In Mark (5:15, 16, 18), these Greek forms are translated with wods, which
occurs nowhere else (cf. Zatočil 1964: 91).
It is usually stated (cf. Kotin 2012: 387) that before *-ar(i)ja-, *-(j)an- stems satisfied
the actor nominal function in Germanic, e.g. Goth. wilwa ‘robber’, skula ‘debtor’
(§8.23), liugnja ‘liar’, weiha (2x) ‘priest’ (Schulze 1924b; Laird 1940: 60), haurnja*
‘horn-blower’ (§8.23), fiskja* ‘fisher(man)’ (acc pl fiskjans Mk 1:16, Lk 5:2) vs. OS
fiscari (Heliand 3209), OHG fiscari, OF fisker, OE fiscere ‘id.’. While there is “not the
slightest indication that the West Germanic word for ‘fisher’ was at any time fisk-ja
and not fisk-ari” (Goebel 1900: 322), Old High German, which borrowed a number
of Latin -ārius formations, has many -ari replacements of older actor nominals
(Wilmanns 1896: 285ff.).
The new suffix *-ar(i)ja- was not immediately accepted (KM 81ff.; Lowe 1972: 214;
Strid 2002: 739), but mushroomed in North and West Germanic to a high level of
productivity (Sütterlin 1887: 77–105; Wilmanns 1896: 282–94; Goebel 1900: 321; cf.
Strid 2002: 739). The history from Indo-European to English is traced in LSDE 140ff.
30 Before ML, daemoniārius occurs 1x: daemoniārius quī habet daemonem (Jerome, Treatise on Psalm 1)
‘daemoniārius: one who has a demon’ (TLL 5.1.6.44). The alleged source of daimonareis (Snædal 2002c:
259), Gk. daimoniários* is not even recorded in the 15-vol. Méga Lexikón by Dimitrakos (1964: 1738) or
in the TLG. It occurs in hóti tòn hágion Epiphánion lẽron ekálei kaì daimoniárion (Photius, Codices
59.18a.10) ‘that he (Chrysostom) had called St. Epiphanius inane and demoniacal’. If the report by Photius
[ca. 820–93] is accurate and the word was in current use at the time of Chrysostom [ca. 347–407], that
would have been close to the time of the Gothic Bible translation. Jellinek (1926: 189) discusses the word
as a derogative from the popular language, in which case it could have been in existence and simply not
recorded before Jerome [ca. 347–420] gave it a Latin rendition which, incidentally, violates the Latin pat-
tern of -ārius attached directly to a base, i.e. *daemon-ārius would be expected (cf. LSDE 140–50). There
is no indication that Jerome’s word is an insult, and Goth. daimonareis is descriptive rather than pejorative
on the evidence of the paraphrases unhulþon haban* ‘have a devil’ (habandins Jn 10:21, habais Jn 8:48, 52,
etc.), saei habaida unhulþons (Lk 8:27) ‘who had devils’, and even in ahmin unhrainjamma (Mk 5:2) ‘with
unclean spirit’ (Gering 1874: 395; Griepentrog 1990: 25; Falluomini 2015: 84f.). The formation seems to
be built on *daimōn-, which differs from the Greek and Latin bases in several ways. Still, daimonareis
violates the monosyllabic base condition, possibly because of the similar forms in Greek and Latin
(Sturtevant 1947a: 92; 1951: 55f.).
8.27 -þs, -ds, -ts (adj -a-) 365
Crim. alt (cf. Goth. alþeis < *alþja-) (adj -a-) ‘old’ = OS ald ‘old, aged, venerable’,
OHG alt ‘id.’, OE eald ‘old, ancient; eminent, exalted’ < Gmc. *alda- ‘(grown) old’
< *h2el-tó- (cf. Lat. altus ‘high, deep’), original PP to *alan- (Goth. alan) ‘grow’
(MUN 250f., GPA 97f., EWDS 30f., VG 271, 278f., HGE 13, EDL 35, EDPG 20)
dauþs (adj -a-) ‘dead’ = ON dauðr, OS dōd, dōđ, OHG tōt, OE dēad < Gmc. *dauda-
‘dead’ < *dhou(H)-tó-, original vbl adj of *daujan- (ON deyja) ‘die’ (GED 89f.,
MUN 251, GPA 149, EWDS 829, VG 271, HGE 69, EDPG 90, LHE2 326)
hafts* (adj -a-) ‘bound’ (dat pl n wk haftam 1Cor 7:10A) = OS haft ‘fettered, bound,
captured; pregnant’, OHG haft ‘fettered, bound, captured’; cf. ON haftr / haptr (m)
‘captive, (male) prisoner’, OE hæft (m) ‘captive; slave’; cf. ON haft / hapt (n) ‘bond,
chain, fetter’, OE hæft (m) ‘bond, fetter; bondage, imprisonment’ < Gmc. *hafta-
< *kap-tó- (Benveniste 1961: 31; MUN 251; Jasanoff 2002/3: 136) / *kh2p-tó- (EDPG
198, LHE2 117) = Lat. captus ‘taken, captured’ [*kap- = *keh2p- LIV 344f.] (cf. VGS
91, HGE 149; non-IE EDL 90)
kalds* (adj -a-) (nom sg n kald, gen sg n kaldis) ‘cold’ = ON kaldr ‘cold; baneful, cruel’,
OS kald ‘cold’, OHG kalt ‘id.’, OE ceald ‘id.’ < Gmc. *kalda- ‘id.’ < *ǵolH-tó- [*ǵ/gel-
without laryngeal in LIV 185], original PP to *kalan- ‘be cold’, e.g. ON kala ‘freeze’
(EDPG 278; cf. GED 214, MUN 251, GPA 328, EWDS 420, VG 271, EDL 256, LHE2
109, 119, 326)
kunþs (adj -a-) ‘known, recognized’ (q.v. in App.)
sads (adj -a-) ‘satiated, sated, full’ = ON saðr ‘id.’, OS sad* ‘id.’, OHG sat ‘id.’, OE sæd
‘sated, filled, weary’ < Gmc. *sada- < *sh2-tó-, old PP to *seh2- ‘fill’; cf. -i- stem Lat.
satis ‘enough, sufficient’ (GED 296, MUN 252, GPA 458f., EWDS 705, VG 271, HGE
310f., EDL 540, EDPG 419), posited by Szemerényi (1979) for two Gothic passages
(§4.19), but the substantivized adjectival neuter has parallels in þiuþ ‘good’, ubil
‘evil’, etc. (Sturtevant 1930: 110f.); cf. also soþ(s)* in du soþa leikis (Col 2:23A/B) ‘for
the satisfying of the body’ < *seh2-ti- (LHE2 190)
Like Lat. -tus (< *-to-), the resultativity of Gmc. *-þ/ða- translates into possession
on nominal bases. For example, on a word like butter, which is both a noun and a
verb, buttered is the PPP to the verb but with reference to the noun means ‘provided
366 Nominal derivation
with butter’, hence applied to purely nominal bases like honeyed, bearded, etc. That
the verbal function is the most basic is indicated by (i) other languages, like West
Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut family), where -gaq is the PPP on verbs, e.g. manigsa-gaq
‘smoothed’, but sporadic on nominal bases, one example being nuna-gaq ‘provided
with land’; (ii) as a PPP Lat. -tus alternates with -sus but not on denominals, which most
frequently appear in a derived form -ātus, -ītus, -ūtus, e.g. ānulātus ‘ringed, fettered’
(ānulus ‘(small) ring’) rather than *ānultus; and (iii) in the Indo-European languages
in which the PPP is *-to-, denominals generally exhibit a derived form (LSDE 175ff.).
With Ved. yuk-tá- ‘yoked’, contrast Gk. zug-ō-tós ‘id.’ . In Germanic, likewise, the
denominal suffix is most frequently *-ōda- (< *-ā-to-, *-ō-to-) except in a few forms
like Goth. un-qen-iþ-s* [un-womaned] (dat pl m wk unqenidam 1Cor 7:8A), ON
ú-kvændr (< *-i-da-) ‘not provided with a wife; unmarried’ (KM 142), semantically
but not formally like Old Bulgarian ženatŭ ‘provided with a wife’ (< *-eh2-to-).31 For
*-ō-da- in Germanic, cf. OS uuerod ‘throng, host; followers; crowd, multitude; peo-
ple’, OE weorod ‘host, troop, band, crew; multitude, crowd; people; retainer, follower;
assembly’ < *wer-ōda- ‘manned, peopled’ to *wer- ‘man’ (KM 143). Goth. *salboþs is by
origin ‘salved, smeared with ointment’ (KM 143; Jasanoff 2018), but becomes the PPP
by reference to *solpā-yé/ó- > salbon ‘anoint’. PPP *solpā-tó- > *salbōdaz > OHG
gisalbōt (Fullerton 1989: 64; LHE2 189).
Another potential example of a denominal adjective is stainiþs ‘stoned’: ainamma
sinþa stainiþs was ‘one time I was stoned’ (2Cor 11:25). However, stainiþs is the PPP
of stainjan* ‘to stone’ because it means ‘pelted with stones’, not ‘provided with stones’,
and translates a Greek aor pass elithásthēn to litházein ‘fling stones; stone’, derived
from líthos ‘stone’ (cf. Lat. lapidātus sum ‘I was stoned’, from lapidāre ‘to stone’,
denom to lapis / lapid- ‘stone’). Like Gk. litházein and Lat. lapidāre, Goth. stainjan*
is denominal (GGS 174) and exists in other contexts, e.g. staineiþ mik ‘you stone me’
(Jn 10:32), ni stainjam þuk ‘we do not stone you’ (Jn 10:33). On stoning, see Pausch
(1954: 130).
From *-tó- adjectives were built verbal formations in *-t-. For instance, beside Gk.
plék-ein ‘to braid, plait, twine’ was an adjective plektós ‘plaited’. Its ancestor form gave
rise to Lat. plec-t-ere ‘to plait’ and Gmc. *fleh-t-an- > Goth. flaihtan* ‘braid, plait’, OS
flehtan* ‘plait, weave together’, OHG flehtan ‘id.’ (Brugmann 1892: 1039, 1042f.; 1906:
362; CGG 188; HGE 106, EDG 472, EDPG 146).
Liuhaþ ‘light’ (6x, acc 8x, 1 dupl) / liuhad (2x, acc 1x), dat liuhada (6x, 2 dupl), etc.
supposedly has a suffix *-e/o-tó-, the -h- by “arrest of Verner’s Law” (Woodhouse 2000a:
209); cf. liuhadei ‘illumination’ (§8.5). However, this was originally a consonant stem,
as in Hitt. lukkatt- ‘dawn’ < *l(e)uk-ot- (EDHIL 533), secondarily thematized in
Germanic: *léukot- > PGmc. *leuhad-a- (NWG 434, LHE2 223), and the h is regular.
31 Unqeniþs* is often listed as a PPP (e.g. Skeat 1868: 149; Köbler 1989: 134; Snædal), but there is no
Gothic participle *qeniþs or verb *qenjan ‘take a wife, marry’, and -qen-iþ- can be denominal like the -i/et
type in OHG, e.g. ge-hundet ‘provided with a dog’ (Wilmanns 1896: 449). Gk. á-gamos ‘unmarried’
(unspecified for sex) is also translated with un-liugaiþs* ‘not married’ (Barasch 1973: 146), negated PPP of
1.liugan (§5.17), which occurs in other contexts involving marriage (cf. Kind 1901: 24).
8.28 -ns (adj/m -a-), -n (n -a-) 367
There were also nouns in *-to-. Some of the examples cited by Casaretto (2004:
445–62) are of disputed etymology (Kroonen 2013) and therefore not secure as *-to-
formations. A cogent case can be made for the following (cf. VGS 91f., KM 143f.); see
also huzd ‘treasure’ in the Appendix.
Most Indo-European nouns in *-to- were associated with adjectives and typically
accented on the root syllable. One source was substantivization of *-to- adjectives, e.g.
Gk. khórtos ‘enclosure’ (see gards in App.). Another category consisted of deverbal
nouns, e.g. phórtos ‘load, cargo; burden’ to phér-ein ‘carry’, including a class of
feminine abstracts in *-teh2- (Gmc. *-þō-); cf. Gk. pot ‘drink, draught’ beside pótos
‘drinking, beverage’, potós ‘drinkable’. These formations declined in productivity in
Germanic, but Gothic attests several e- grade formations, including jiuhts* (dat sg
jiuhta Bl 2v.26) ‘the harnessed one’ < *yéug-to- (Schuhmann 2016: 67f.).
ains (num, str adj -a-) ‘one; a certain; alone’ (§4.25) = ON einn, etc.
fulls (adj -a-) ‘full’ = ON fullr, etc.
368 Nominal derivation
The source of ains is *Hoi-no- (Lat. ūnus ‘one’) > Gmc. *ainaz > Goth. ains, OE ān
‘one’, possibly h1oi-n-o- with pronominal stem *h1ei- and singulative -n- (Pronk 2015:
342). Dunkel reconstructs *oy-no- ‘sole, alone’ to óy- ‘sole; single’ (LIPP 2.587f.).
Dialectal IE *mei-no- ‘my’ gave Gmc. *mīnaz, whence Goth. meins, OE mīn ‘mine, my’.
Probably deverbal is *plh1-nó- ‘filled, full’ (Goth. fulls, Eng. full).
Following is a short list of Gothic nouns in simple *-no- (cf. NWG 314–26), most of
which can be found with additional discussion in the Appendix.
Thematic neuters like many of the above constituted a growing class; cf. Gk. stérnon
‘breast-bone, breast, sternum’ < *ster(h3)-no- ‘spread’ [*sterh3- ‘to spread’ LIV 599f.].
From the root *teḱ- ‘beget’ (LIV 618), Greek created téknon [Hom.] ‘child’. And so on.
At least synchronically, þiudans ‘king’ (q.v. in App.) contains the suffix *-ana-,
parallel to Lat. dominus ‘lord, master (of the house)’ from a thematized -n- stem
*dom-en-o- (Pronk 2015: 328). For *-o-no- > -ana-, cf. Goth. akran ‘fruit’, aljan ‘avidity’
(q.v. in App.).
Thematized *-en-o- makes verbal adjectives like Ved. vacaná- ‘speaking’, svapaná-
‘sleeping’, or, with different accent, nouns, e.g. Ved. vácana- ‘word’ (cf. KM 107f.). It
makes participles of the type OCS nesenŭ ‘carried’ and maybe runic slaginaz ‘struck
down, slain’ (Kr 99, ORI 11: Möjbro stone [400–700]), haitinaz ‘called’ (Kr 61, ORI 25:
8.29–30 -ans, -ins (adj/m -a-), -eins (adj -a-) 369
Kalleby stone [?ca. 400]), Goth. (adj) fulgins* ‘hidden’ (§2.4), etc. (Harðarson 2001:
69), but evidence for *-ina- is considerable (Mottausch 2013: 22–6).32
Roughly parallel to -an- in þiudans is -in- in Goth. kindins ‘governor, ethnarch’. It is
the only Gothic noun of this type recorded by Casaretto (NWG 320), and the -i- is due
to the -i- stem *kindi- ‘kind, race, tribe’ (EDPG 288) from which it is derived (KM 109).
Gothic has one feminine in *-(i)njō, Saurini (Mk 7:26) ‘Syrian woman’, derived
from Saur ‘Syrian’ (KM 120; Rabofski 1990: 28f.; NWG 190, 332). Sturtevant (1947a:
96) suggests that *-injō was reanalyzed as *-in-jō because a shift from ‘person in office’
(as in kindins ‘ethnarch’) to ‘nationality’ is easily motivated. More likely, *-(i)n-jō was
fem to an adj like ON heiðinn ‘heathen’. Feminine adjectives often make derived
feminines; cf. Lat. gallus ‘cock’ : gallīna ‘hen’ etc. (Miller 2010: ii. 134, w. lit; cf.
Luraghi 2014: 210, 214). Dialectally, *-in-jō derived feminines productively; cf. ON
vargynja ‘she-wolf ’ (vargr ‘wolf ’), OHG fuhsin (replacing foha), OE *fyxen ‘female
fox’ (OHG fuhs, OE fox), replacing *fuhōn- (Goth. fauho*, ON fóa) ‘id.’, etc.
(Grienberger 1900: 65; KM 120; NWG 225). Like Saurini are OHG Beiar-in ‘Bavarian
woman’, Franch-in ‘Franconian woman’ [c8] (Rabofski 1990: 46, 68).
Adjectives of material
barizeins* (4x) ‘of barley, made of barley flour’ (*bariz- / *barza- ‘barley’ > ON barr,
OE bere HGE 36, Thöny 2013: 98, EDPG 52) < Gmc. *barizīnaz < dial. IE *bhares-
eyno- / *bhares-īno- [*bhar-es- ‘barley’]; cf. Lat. farīna ‘meal, flour’ (GED 62,
Oettinger 2003: 189, NWG 564, LSDE 159, EDL 201f.)—an exception to Thurneysen’s
Law (Woodhouse 2000a: 200), conditioned by Verner’s Law (Bernharðsson
2001: 63f.)
filleins* ‘leathern’ (only acc sg f filleina) = OHG fellīn ‘made of skin’, OE fellen ‘id.’
< Gmc. *fellīnaz (cf. Lat. pellīnus ‘id.’), derived from Gmc. *fella- (n) [dial. IE *pel-
nó-] (see (þruts)-fill §8.33)
gulþeins* ‘golden’ (only nom pl n gulþeina 2Tim 2:20B) = ON gullinn, OS guldīn*
(acc pl m guldina), OHG guldīn, OE gylden < Gmc. *gulþ/d-īnaz ‘golden’, derived
from *gulþ/da- ‘gold’ (see gulþ in App.)
32 Boutkan (1995: 78–82) denies *-eno-, preferring confusion between *-no- and *-ino-. How early? His
claim that *-eno- is unlikely in Indo-European is vitiated by the absence of Brugmann’s Law (see
Kümmel 2012: 308) in these forms in Sanskrit (vacana- < *-eno-, not *vakāna- or analogical *vacāna-
< *-ono-). Thanks to Hans Henrich Hock for discussion of this topic. Even if one does not accept
Brugmann’s Law, *-eno- is well grounded (Harðarson 2001: 69–74; Neri 2009: 9; Pronk 2015).
370 Nominal derivation
silubreins* (4x) ‘of silver; silver coin’ = OS silu rīn* ‘of silver’ (acc sg m silubrinna ~
silofrina), OHG silberīn ‘id.’, OE seolfren ‘id.’ < Gmc. *silubr-īnaz, derived from
*silubr-a- (n) ‘silver’ (see silubr in App.)
triweins* ‘wooden, of wood’ (only nom pl n triweina 2Tim 2:20B33) = Norw. treen
‘hard’, OE trēowen ‘of tree, wooden’ < Gmc. *trewīnaz, derived from *trewa- (n)
‘tree’ (see triu in App.)
þaurneins* (2x) ‘made of thorns, thorn(y)’ is especially important because þaurneina
wipja (Mk 15:17) ‘thorn crown’ alternates with wipja* <wippja> us þaurnum (Jn
19:2) ‘crown out of thorns’; cf. OE þyrnen ‘of thorns’ < Gmc. *þurnīnaz, derived
from *þur-na/u- ‘thorn (plant), briar’ (see þaurnus* in App.)
gaitein (acc Lk 15:29) (n -a-) ‘young goat, little kid’ = OHG gei(z)zīn (n) ‘young
billygoat; goat’; listed as diminutives in Kotin (2012: 388), but originally adjectives
(Douse 1886: 97); cf. OHG gei(z)zīn ‘of a goat, pertaining to goats’ = OE gæten
‘goat’s; pertaining to goats; made of goatskin’ < Gmc. *gaitīnaz, derived from *gait-s
(Goth. gaits App.) (Weber 1991: 202; AHDR 28, HGE 123, NWG 328)
swein* (n -a-) ‘swine, pig’: not a diminutive (pace EDPG 502); cf. Lat. suīnus ‘of a pig’
(see swein* in App.)
Most notable in Group 2 is the fact these adjectives are often substantivized (NWG
327ff.), possible examples being the neuters gumein jah qinein (Mk 10:6) ‘male and
female’ (NWG 329), but qinein also means ‘silly woman’ (acc pl qineina 2Tim 3:6A/B),
translating Gk. gunaikária (cf. Wolfe, forthcoming).
Because of the difference in meaning between Groups 1 and 2, it is possible that
they have different sources, even if both fell together as Gmc. *-īna-.
For Group 1, the likely source is *-éy-no-, an extension of *-éyo-, which originated
in part by thematization of *-i- stems (Benveniste 1935: 74–7), and in part was the
prototypical reflex of the suffixal -é- grade of thematic nouns before the secondary
suffix *-yo- denoting appurtenance (Steer 2014: 343f.). It came to denote material
composition ‘made of; derived from; consisting of (containing); resembling’ (IEL 267f.,
284, IS 420). Examples include Ved. hiraṇ y-áya- ‘golden’, Gk. arguroũs (*h2erǵ-ur-
éyo-) ‘of silver’, Lat. niveus ‘snowy’ < *snigwh-éyo- (LSDE 162ff.). In Germanic this
suffix seems to have been extended to *-éy-no-, based on the large number of adjec-
tives of material with this form, e.g. Goth. airþeins (2Cor 4:7A/B) ‘earthen, (made) of
earth’ (airþa ‘earth’), Goth. muldeins ‘(made) of earth, of dust’ (mulda ‘dust, sand, earth’),
staineins* ‘(made) of stone’ (stains ‘stone’). Airþeins can also be relational ‘of earth,
earthly’ (2Cor 5:1B, Phil 3:19A/B) and contrast with himina-kunds* ‘heaven-born’
33 Kauffmann (1920: 16) comments on the rhythmicity of this passage: ni sind þatainei kasa gulþeina
jah silubreina ak jah triweina jah digana ‘there are not only vessels of gold and of silver but also of wood
and clay’. Note the five-syllable groupings ni sind þatainei | kasa gulþeina | jah silubreina | ak jah triweina.
8.31 -a/i/ug- (-a/i/uh-) (adj -a-) 371
audags (Mt 11:6+, e.g. sa audaga praufetus Bl 1r.7 ‘the blessed prophet’) ‘blessed, fortu-
nate’ renders Gk. makários ‘blessed, happy’ (Velten 1930: 490); relatives include ON
auðigr ‘rich, opulent’, OS ōdag ‘rich, prosperous’, OHG ōtag ‘id.’, OE ēadig ‘happy,
blessed, prosperous’ < Gmc. *auda-ga-, derived from *auda- ‘riches’ > ON auðr
‘riches, wealth’ < IE *Heu-dhh1-o- (HGE 28, NWG 297, EDPG 40), Goth. auda-
(hafts)* [wealth-bound] ‘favored’: nom sg f anstai audahafta (Lk 1:28) ‘favored
with grace’ poetically captures the meaning of Gk. kekharitōménē ‘graced, favored’
(Schaubach 1879: 13, w. lit); cf. Vulg. grātiā plēna ‘full of grace’, Vet. Lat. grātificāta
‘graced’, benedicta ‘blessed’ (VL 1976: 6)
gredags ‘hungry’ = OS grādag ‘greedy’, OHG grātag ‘id.’ < Gmc. *grēdagaz; cf. ON
grāðugr ‘greedy’ < *grēdugaz, OE grædig ‘hungry, covetous, greedy’ < *grēdigaz,
derived from *grēduz (Goth. gredus*) ‘hunger’ < dial. IE *ǵhr-eh1-tú- [*ǵher- ‘like,
want’] (AHDR 30, HGE 142, LIV 176, NWG 523f., EDPG 187)
handugs ‘wise’ = ON hondugr ‘able’ < Gmc. *handugaz, probably only secondarily
associated with *handuz (Goth. handus ‘hand’, q.v. in App.) (EDPG 207f.); cf. OHG
hantag / hantīg ‘sharp, wise’ OE list-hendig ‘having skillful hands’ (cf. Eng. handy)
< *handa/igaz (GPA 278f., HGE 159); also possible is a derivative from *kom dheh1-
‘put together’ (LIPP 2.427)
wainahs (Rom 7:24A, Bl 1r.14) ‘unfortunate, unlucky, miserable’ = OHG wēnag
‘wretched, unlucky; small’, MLG wēnic ‘id.’ < Gmc. *wainag/haz, derived from
*wainōn- ‘whine, lament, bewail’, evidently a nasal present *wai-néh2- to the
372 Nominal derivation
interjection *wai [*wai ‘woe’] (AHDR 94, HGE 440, EDPG 566f.; differently,
Grienberger 1900: 235)
waurdahs* ‘verbal, characterized by words’: us waur|dahai wistai rodja(n)ds (Sk 4.3.14f.)
‘speaking from his verbal nature’ (Bennett 1960: 63 ‘speaking with a natural logic’),
a strange translation of Gk. logikós (Wilmanns 1896: 464; cf. Velten 1930: 350),
like andaþāhts (6x, 2 dupl) at Rom 12:1C (acc sg m andaþāhtana) and Sk 2.4.22f.
(acc sg m wk anda|þāhtan) ‘thinking, rational’ (Snædal 2015a: 84) < *wurdahaz;
cf. ON orðigr ‘verbose, garrulous’, OE wordig ‘wordy, verbose’ < Gmc. *wurdag-
(Bammesberger 1986b: 36; Woodhouse 2000a: 215), derived from *wurda- (see
Goth. waurd ‘word’ in App.)
As to the origin, Indo-European may have had two related adjectival suffixes, *-ḱo-
and *-ko- (LSDE 160). The suffix *-ḱo- shows up as Vedic -śá-, e.g. babhru-śá- ‘brown’
(babhrú- ‘id.’), yuva-śá- ‘young’ (yúvan- ‘id.’) beside yuva-ka- ‘id.’, babhru-ká- ‘brown-
ish’, etc. Whether or not Ved. -ká- and -śá- reflect different (but clearly related) suf-
fixes in Indo-European, in the centum dialects there would be no difference.
Parallel to *-ḱo- and *-ko-, it is probable that Indo-European had *-iḱo- and *-iko-
(cf. Melchert 1987: 201). Melchert bases this on the Luvian suffix -iz(z)a-, which has
functions similar to those of Greek -ikós, e.g. URUTaurišizza- ‘one from URUTauriša’
(URU is the determinative for cities or towns), comparable to the Homeric ethnic suffix
-ikós, as in Akhaiïkós ‘Achaean’, Pelasgikós ‘Pelasgic’, Trōïkós ‘Trojan’.
Gk. -ikós had three main functions (Szemerényi 1958: 147; 1987: iii. 1535): (i) ethnic/
classification (Gortunikós ‘Gortynian’), (ii) characterization (thūmikós ‘high-spirited’),
(iii) proclivity or aptitude (thēreutikós ‘of or for hunting’).
Goth. handugs (§3.12) ‘wise’ (Elkin 1954: 372) illustrates *-kó- on a -u- stem, like Gk.
thēlukós ‘feminine’, Ved. tánuka- ‘thin’, etc. Even if handugs was only secondarily
associated with handus ‘hand’, derivationally handugs exhibits a -u- stem (GGS 169).
The vowel alternations in the suffix are due at least to the attachment to different
stem types, but other accounts have been suggested (Thöny 2013: 164f., w. lit).
For the suffix on -ja- stems (KM 192f.), note þiuþ-eig-s ‘good, perfect’ (see þiuþi-qiss
‘blessing’ §7.6), gawairþeigs* ‘at peace’, only gawairþeigai sijaiþ (Mk 9:50) ‘be at peace’
(§11.13), from gawairþi ‘peace’ (§8.18).
On adjectival bases in Indo-European, *-kó- was emphatic, as in Ved. sana-ká-
‘quite old’ (to sána- ‘old’). Lat. ūnicus ‘one and only, unique’ is an emphatic to ūnus
‘one’ (EDL 642); cf. Gmc. *ainag/haz (IE *óyno-(oy)ko- LIPP 2.589) in Goth. ainaha
‘only (begotten)’,34 OS ēnag ‘only’, but *ainigaz in OS ēnig ‘any; (some)one; nobody’,
OE ænig ‘one, anyone, any’ (KM 190, HGE 8). Contrast Goth. stainahs* ‘stony’
(stains ‘stone’), OE stānig / stāneg ‘stony’ (stān ‘stone’) from *staina-ga-z (HGE 369),
34 Ainaha is generally considered a predicate adjective at Lk 9:38 (e.g. Dvuxžilov 1980: 121), but
Snædal (2013a: 17) lists it as a noun, which is curious because in its only other attestation (Lk 7:12) it looks
like an attributive adjective (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.). Snædal also considers the very attributive-looking
ainoho (main text below) to be a noun. It translates Gk. monogen s ‘only-begotten’, which in Skeireins is
rendered by a compound noun ainabaur* (§7.11) (Snædal 2015a: 84).
8.31 -a/i/ug- (-a/i/uh-) (adj -a-) 373
with rare i- umlaut stænig, as opposed to ænig with obligatory i- umlaut (Hogg
1992: 128).
Always without i- umlaut is *haila-ga-z ‘sacred, holy’ > Pietroassa hailag (§1.3), ON
heilagr, OS hēlag, OHG heilag, OE hālig (Laird 1940: 35f.; KM 190ff., HGE 151).
For the formation of *aina-ga-z, cf. Ved. eka-ká- ‘one and only’ to éka- ‘one’, itself
from *Hoi-ko-, parallel to *Hói-(H)n-o- in Gmc. *ainaz ‘one’ (§8.28). This does not
explain the -h- of Goth. ainaha. If not analogical to ainohun (§3.27) or an error
(GG 122; Schuhmann 2016: 64), the fem hapax ainoho (Lk 8:42) could point to
accented *- - (Woodhouse 2000a: 216). Also possible is doubly inflected *Hoineh2-
keh2 > *ainōhō (cf. Douse 1886: 100). Ainaha obeys Thurneysen’s Law (Suzuki 2018).
In Goth. ana stainahamma (Mk 4:5, 16) ‘on the stony (ground)’, the -h- obeys
Thurneysen’s Law (§2.5). The -g- forms that do not conform have been attributed to
leveling (Bammesberger 1986b). According to another analysis, the -h-/-g- alternation
involves -g- by Verner’s Law (§2.4) since, as illustrated by the examples above, the
accent of *-(i)kó- in Vedic and Greek is oxytonic (Gallee 1882: 34; Wackernagel &
Debrunner 1954: 515ff.; Woodhouse 2000a: 213), which became mobile in Germanic,
predicting alternants with and without VL (Kiparsky 2010). Kiparsky does not con-
sider Thurneysen’s Law. For Woodhouse, -g- forms are regular reflexes of Verner’s
Law, and -h- forms generally obey TL. Bernharðsson (2001: 97–102) argues that TL is
not a credible account of -ah-. Woodhouse admits a few -g- forms as exceptions,
which, on Suzuki’s (2018) account, are expected because g was largely unaffected.
Un-barnahs ‘childless’ (Lk 20: 28, 29, 30) has no other forms attested, but may have
an invariant stem *barnah-, which obeys Thurneysen’s Law (Suzuki 2018). The word is
a calque on Gk. á-teknos ‘childless’ (Velten 1930: 349; LCG 228).
Contrast with -g- the similarly negated un-hunslags* [without hunsl (offering)]
‘implacable, unappeasable’ (nom pl m unhunslagai 2Tim 3:3A/B), which renders Gk.
á-spondos [without spond (drink offering)] ‘without truce or treaty, implacable’
(Velten 1930: 349; LCG 228). In four of six Biblical occurrences hunsl (7x, 1 dupl) trans-
lates Gk. thusíā ‘offering, sacrifice’ (Groeper 1915: 28ff.; Laird 1940: 103; cf. NWG 409).
Goth. *bairgahs ‘mountainous’ in bairgahei* ‘mountain region’ is from *berg-a-
(see baurgs in App.), but pairs with fairguni (q.v. in App.), and may have -h- by
dissimilation of *bergag- (Woodhouse 2000a: 216). Bairgahei* may be a rare -ah-īn-
formation with collective function (Meid 1993: 277; NWG 573), or *bairgahs can be
collective (Meyer 1864: 292; Wilmanns 1896: 365f.; Jellinek GGS 170). Meyer and
Wilmanns compare the collective nom pl broþr-ah-ans (Mk 12:20) ‘brothers’ (cf. NWG
571f.) and the OHG type steinahi ‘stony terrain’ (steinag ‘stony’), dornahi ‘thorny area’,
boumahi ‘place with trees’, etc. Kotin (2012: 392) repeats the examples and view of
Guxman (1958: 205) that -g- is productively derived from abstract nouns, while -h- is
(rarely) derived from object-type nouns and person designations. Thurneysen’s Law
(§2.5) can account for the Gothic examples (cf. Streitberg 1903: 497) but does not
explain the OHG forms. If collective *-ah- is the same as adjectival *-ag-, the split
must have occurred between variants with and without VL in Proto-Germanic
(cf. Bernharðsson 2001: 99).
374 Nominal derivation
Old English formations in -ig are especially frequent as the leftmost member
of a bahuvrihi compound (§7.10), e.g. blōdigtōð (Beowulf 2082) ‘bloodytoothed’. Carr
(1939: 226f.) records twenty-seven such examples.
fūls (Jn 11:39) ‘maloderous, putrid’ = ON fúll ‘foul, stinking; dirty; rotten; mean’, OS
fūl-itha ‘rottenness’, MLG vūl ‘foul, rotten, spoiled’, OHG fūl ‘foul, putrid; vile’, OE
fūl ‘foul, dirty, rotten, nasty’ < Gmc. *fūlaz ‘filthy, foul’ < dial. IE *pū-lo- [*peuH-
‘rot, decay’ LIV 480]; cf. Lat. pūtēre ‘to rot’ (AHDR 69, GPA 219, HGE 121, LSDE 185,
EDL 501, EDPG 158)
hails ‘healthy’ = ON heill ‘whole, healed’, etc.
mikils ‘great, large, many’ = ON mikill ‘large, big’, etc.
There were also -l- stem nouns. A few examples follow (NWG 395–403).
< ?*doḱ-lo- [etym. unclear] (GED 338, MUN 75f., EWDS 902, HGE 398, NWG 401,
EDPG 504)
þwahl* (acc sg <þwalh> Sk 2.2.4) (n -a-) ‘a ritual washing; baptism’ (Del Pezzo 1973b) =
ON þváll ‘a kind of soap’, OHG dwahal ‘bath, baptism’, OE þwēal, þwæhl (m/n)
‘washing; purification; bath’ < Gmc. *þwahla- (n) ‘washing, bathing’ (*-la- possibly
from instrumental *-þla- < IE *-tlo-) derived from *þwahan- (Goth. þwahan)
‘to wash’; cf. OPruss. twaxtan ‘brushwood for bathing’ (MUN 76, EWDS 918, HGE
431, NWG 396, EDPG 555)
mawilo (f -n-) ‘little girl’ (Mk 5:41) = ON meyla ‘id.’, OE mēowle ‘maid, damsel, virgin’
< Gmc. *magwilō(n), derived from *magwī (Goth. mawi) ‘girl’ (LHE2 111); cf. Goth.
magula (m -n-) ‘little boy’, dim of *maguz (Goth. magus, q.v. in App.) ‘boy, son’
(HGE 253f., NWG 398)
wairila* (f -ō-?) ‘lip’ (dat pl wairilom Mk 7:6, 1Cor 14:21) = OE weolor, weler (m/f) ‘id.’
< Gmc. *wer-ila/ō- (m/f) ‘lip’, dim of *werō- (OF were f) ‘lip’; cf. OPruss. warsus ‘lip’
< *wors-u- (EDPG 580; cf. AHDR 99, HGE 456f., NWG 398)
The most interesting fact about Gothic diminutives is that they almost never trans-
late Greek diminutives. The ensuing discussion is from Wolfe (forthcoming). For
instance, kúōn ‘dog’ and kunárion ‘domestic (?) dog’ are both rendered hunds*. Fisks*
‘fish’ translates ikhthús (Lk 5:6, 9:13, 16), (bleached) dim ikhthud́ ion (Mk 8:7), and dim
opsárion (Jn 6:9, 11) ‘id.’ (lit. something boiled, eaten with bread). Asilus* ‘donkey’
renders both ónos (Jn 12:15, Lk 19:30) and dim onárion (Jn 12:14). Barn usually trans-
lates Gk. téknon ‘child’ (36x) or bleached dim paidíon ‘(little) child’ (21x). The Gothic
dim barnilo translates téknon (6x), dim tekníon (Jn 13:33), and paidíon (Lk 1:76).
Regardless of the Greek text, Wolfe shows, a ‘child’ is directly addressed as barnilo
except at 2Tim 2:1 and Col 3:20, the latter amid a list of itemized individuals in the
nominative in Greek. In short, Goth. barnil- ‘little child’ occurs only as voc sg barnilo
(5x) and voc pl barnilona (3x) (cf. NWG 394, 397).
Indo-European had nominal and adjectival *-(e)lo- formations (LSDE 57f.),
including hypocoristics and diminutives. With Lat. porculus ‘young pig’ cf. MHG
verhel (Germ. Ferkel), Lith. paršẽlis ‘piglet’. Many Gothic names end in -ila, e.g.
(*)Wulfila, OHG Wolfilo ‘little wolf’, Attila ‘little father’, Theudila, a cleric at the
Gothic church of Sancta Anastasia (Naples papyrus 83f., 122), Sindila, Costila
(Naples papyrus 84), Agila, Albila, Badwila, Gudila, Mannila, Merila, Quid(d)ila,
Triggwila, Usdrila, fem Runilo, Sifilo, Tulgilo, etc. (Wrede 1891: 195f.; KM 87;
Sotiroff 1968; Scardigli 1973: 72; GED 411f.; NWG 393; Francovich Onesti 2009;
Kotin 2012: 388).
Synesthetically /i/ optimally represents small size (Miller 2014b: 158–61, w. lit), and
most Germanic diminutives have the suffix alternant *-i-la- (Seebold 1975: 158ff.),
especially outside of Gothic (NWG 392), e.g. ON grefill ‘little hoe’, OHG grebil ‘peg’
< Gmc. *grabilaz (HGE 139).
For an example on a -u- stem, cf. magula (m -n-) ‘little boy’ (Jn 6:9, Sk 7.1.8), only
attested in Gothic, translates Gk. paidárion ‘young / little boy’ (Wolfe, forthcoming).
‘uncultivated field’) in miliþ haiþiwisk ‘wild field honey’ (Mk 1:6), the rendering of Gk.
méli ágrion (Schulze 1905: 752ff.; GGS 170).
The Gothic derivative aiwiski* ‘disgrace’ (§8.20) and the deadjectival verb aiwiskon*
‘behave disgracefully’ presuppose an adjective *aiwisks ‘disgraceful’ < Gmc. *aiwiska-
‘shameful’, attested in unaiwisks* (acc sg m unaiwiskana 2Tim 2:15B) ‘irreproachable,
unashamed’, OE æwisc ‘shameful’, MHG eisch ‘horrible’. The formation goes back to a
putative IE *h2eigwh-isk-o-; cf. Ved. an-ehás- ‘flawless’ < *n-h2éigwh-es- (EWAia 1.75,
NWG 125, EDPG 16).
Adjectives denoting appurtenance singled out one species distinct from others. Gmc.
*manniska- ‘human’, derived from *mannan- (Goth. manna) ‘human being’, occurs
in Goth. mannisks*, OHG mennisk (> Germ. Mensch ‘human being’), OE mennisc,
ON men(n)skr (Wissmann 1977: 104f.; HGE 260, EDPG 354). Goth. mannisks* ‘human’
sets up an implied contrast with gudisks* ‘godly, divine’ (guþ / gud- ‘god’) in the com-
mentary about Jesus manniskaim waurdam weitwodjands ‘testifying in human words’
(Sk 6.2.8ff.). It also embodies plurality but functions parallel to gudis ‘of God’:
(21) frijodedun auk mais hauhein manniska þau hauhein
loved.3pl for more glory.acc.sg human.acc.sg.f than glory
gudis (Jn 12:43)
god.gen.sg
‘for they loved more the glory of man (human glory) than God’s glory’
The standard archetypes have a genitive plural ‘of people’ (Gk. tõn anthr pōn, Lat.
hominum).
The most productive *-isk- adjectives involve ethnics of source or national identity
(Wilmanns 1896: 469f.), like OPruss. prusiskan ‘Prussian’. Compare Goth. fwnikisks*
‘Phoenician’ in nom sg f was-uþ þan so qino haiþno, Saurini fwnikiska gabaurþai
(Mk 7:26) ‘there was then this woman, a heathen, a Phoenician Syrian (woman)’
(cf. Rabofski 1990: 29), judaiwisks* (judaiwiskaize Tit 1:14A, judaiwiskom : | ufarranneinim
Sk 3.2.9f.) ‘with Jewish35 sprinklings’ (judaius / iudaius ‘Jew’). The -w- is from the stem
of judai-u- (Meyer 1862: 530; Gallee 1882: 38; Douse 1886: 105; Sturtevant 1933b) or by
analogy: þi-us : *þi-wisk- = Judai-us : x (Bammesberger 1995a: 98). Campanile (1970b:
189) takes -w- from Vulgar Latin *Iudéwus (Lat. Iudaeus), as in Welsh Iddew ‘Jew’. In
Gothic, *Iudewus would have yielded judaius by loss of /w/ before /u/. In principle
nom pl Iudaieis could have kept /w/, but paradigm leveling cannot be excluded.
In haiþiwisks* ‘wild’, since haiþi is a *-jō- stem, the -w- is most likely modeled
on (un)aiwisks* and Judaiwisks* ‘Jewish’ (Meyer 1862: 530; Gallee 1882: 38; Sturtevant
1933b, 1949: 140f.). Less likely is the putative model þiwi : *þiwiwisk- = haiþi : x
(Bammesberger 1995a: 99) because (i) *þiwiisk- does not exist, and (ii) -(w)isk- is
added to the root, not to the nom (Sturtevant 1949: 140f.). There are other possibilities,
but -w- cannot be a phonetic glide, which in {haiþi + isk-} could only be -j- (§2.3).
35 The emphasis is indicated by : in the Gothic text, which marks a pause or full stop (Bennett 1970:
468, 1972: 107).
378 Nominal derivation
These are among the few (partial) loan-adjectives in Gothic, and they are hybrids
with productive -iska- (Casaretto 2011: 148, 151).
Ethnic adjectives could serve as a base for further derivation (Wissmann 1977: 106),
as in the adverbs (Gal 2:14B) iudaiw-isk-o ‘like a Jew’, þiud-isk-o ‘like a Gentile’ (þiuda
‘people’); cf. OHG diutisc (> Germ. deutsch) ‘German’. Note also the verb iudaiwiskon
(Gal 2:14B) ‘to live as a Jew’, calqued on Gk. Iouda zein ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 340) and
formed like aiwiskon* ‘behave disgracefully’ (Sturtevant 1938: 464ff.). Nominal derivatives
include barn-isk-ei* ‘childishness’ (§8.5), barn-isk-i* ‘childhood’ (§8.18).
As to history, the suffix *-isko- is widespread in the Indo-European languages of
Europe but the source and original function are unknown (LHE 294). In Germanic,
Baltic, and Slavic, denominal adjectives of various types are frequent. In Greek, and to
some extent Slavic, this suffix makes diminutives and pejoratives (KM 196f.), e.g. Gk.
asterískos [Callimachus] ‘little star’, [Eustathius] ‘asterisk’ (ast r ‘star’), basilískos
[Polybius] ‘princelet, chieftain’, [Hippocrates] ‘serpent, basilisk’ (basileús ‘king’).
In English denominal adjectives, -ish is the head and assigns to the noun whatever
thematic role like would assign: like a child ~ childlike ~ childish (Miller 2014b: 4,
w. lit). For earlier Germanic, cf. OE cildisc ‘childish’, OS kindisk ‘id.’ (kind ‘child’), or
Goth. barnisks* ‘childish, childlike’ (barn ‘child’), ON bernskr ‘id.’; cf. Lith. bérniškas
‘of a servant’ (HGE 37). Note also Goth. funisks* ‘like a fire, fiery’ (fon, fun(in)- ‘fire’).
8.35 Conclusion
Gothic has many suffixes not shared with the rest of Germanic. This is difficult to
explain on an account that has the Goths leaving Scandinavia and splitting from
Nordic.36 It is one thing to posit post-Gothic developments of individual suffixes, but
entirely another to claim that the rest of Germanic had to lose productive suffixes in a
fairly short time. The suffix *-iþō, for instance, was very productive in Gothic and
specialized on heavy monosyllabic bases. None of these properties is evident in the
rest of Germanic. One of the most productive suffixes in North and West Germanic is
*-inga- / *-unga-, barely represented in Gothic, and the feminine alternant *-ingō /
*-ungō is completely absent from Gothic. Since *-i/ung- was present in the earliest
attestations of Germanic in Greek and Roman sources, it is difficult to argue that it
developed after the Goths split from the rest of Germanic. Certainly the productivity
can be claimed to be a post-Gothic development, but the total absence of the feminine
alternant is difficult to explain if there was a special North-East Germanic Sprachbund.
Finally, a Gothic-Nordic stage in the history of Germanic predicts there should be
affixes proper to those two languages alone, but no such affixes occur.
36 As noted in §1.1, there is nothing certain about that hypothesis, and the morphological evidence
renders it even more tenuous.
CH APTER 9
Scholarship is divided on how much Gothic syntax is genuine. Most scholars select
examples that differ from the Greek text.1 That proves nothing because the relevant
Greek model may be lost. Moreover, many Gothic structures were inherited from
Indo-European and share essential features with their counterparts in Greek and
Latin. Similarities and identities are thus to be expected. “Even when the Gothic text
follows the Greek model closely . . . we have no reason to assume that it does not rep-
resent idiomatic Gothic usage” (Werth 1965: 6; cf. Ratkus 2016; Falluomini 2018a).
Several scholars (e.g. Benveniste 1951b: 53, 56) have pointed out that the traditional
insistence on explaining the Gothic text as a literal rendering of the Greek does more
to elucidate the Greek text than Gothic grammar. Many Greek passives are rendered
with a Gothic active and vice versa (GrGS 140f.: Kleyner, forthcoming). Pennington
(2010: 449f.) and Rousseau (2012: esp. 31–6, 297ff.) defend the independence of
Gothic in tense (which is linked to aspect in Greek but not in Gothic), mood, aspect
(cf. Mourek 1893: 304; Lloyd 1979: 143ff.), word order, etc. Pennington (p. 449)
concludes that “The telic, ecbatic, and aetic clauses in the Gothic Gospels are not
calques of the Greek Vorlage, but rather carefully thought-out translations that express
as literally as possible the forms and meaning of the Greek without violating the
grammar or stylistic conventions of Gothic.”
Spec X′
X Compl
The specifier (Spec) is said to asymmetrically (or antisymmetrically) c-command the
complement (Compl). That is, while X and the complement c-command each other, the
complement does not c-command the specifier, hence the asymmetry/antisymmetry.
In a bare phrase structure model, the difference between a head X and the XP it
projects is of no theoretical significance, and there are no bar levels. Complement and
specifier “are just notations for first-Merge and later-Merge” (Chomsky 2005: 14).
The head of S is T Tense or, better, M Mood (Aygen 2002), which has scope over the
entire sentence:
(2) Sentential scope of Tense/Mood
a) *I must see you yesterday.
b) *I saw you tomorrow.
Moreover, the only part of the sentence that is universally obligatory is the Mood
(or Force) element. For Chomsky (1995: 69, w. lit), the force indicator determined
the type of clause/sentence, i.e. declarative, interrogative, imperative, etc., called mood
by other linguists, e.g. Aygen (2002), for whom agreement and epistemic modality
license nominative case. Rizzi (1997) developed an elaborated CP (Complementizer
Phrase) as a place for mood (force), topics, focus, and finiteness: ForceP – TopicP* –
FocusP – TopicP* – Fin[ite] (the asterisk * indicates that topics can iterate). Force is
subdivided according to the illocutionary force of the sentence, e.g. interrogative,
declarative, exclamative (Rizzi 2001, 2004), similar to Mood speech act, etc., of Cinque
(1999). It is therefore reasonable to think of Mood as the basic head of S, with more
detailed subdivisions made as needed.
(3) M(ood) = head of S(entence)
M(ood)P
Spec M
M Compl (etc.)
Also assumed here is a version of the Functional Phrase (FP) hypothesis, accord-
ing to which each lexical category is a complement of a corresponding functional
head (Abney 1987). In more recent terms, the F head is the probe. Just as CP is the
FP to IP (Infl Phrase), called more simply S(entence) here ([C that [S they went]]),
various Aux(iliary)P heads are probes for VPs (may go, have gone), DP heads for NPs
(the dog), and Deg(ree)P heads for A(dj)Ps (so good).
I further assume that (3) is not a top-down model. Rather, all structure is projected
by features in the lexicon. Additional details are supplied as needed.
9.2 Subject pronouns and null subjects 381
In (4b), the pronoun is focused (§11.14) but appositional to Judaieis. The construction
is isolated in Gothic but paralleled elsewhere in Germanic; cf. ON er þeir spyrja þat
mágar [when they hear it kinsmen] ‘when they, the kinsmen, hear it’ (Eythórsson
1995: 57f.).
Gothic, like Greek and Latin, did not use overt expletive subjects (Grimm 1837: 252,
Fertig 2000: 5, Ferraresi 2005: 59, Walkden 2012: 174):
(5) ganah siponi ei wairþai swe
suffice.3sg student.acc.sg comp become.3sg.opt as
laisareis is (Mt 10:25)
teacher.nom.sg his
‘it is enough for the student that he become like his teacher’
The Greek text has no pronoun in this instance, but the verb pepoíēka ‘I have made’ is
unambiguously first person singular.2
In (7), there are two examples in which the Greek text has a subject pronoun that is
not in the Gothic (Schulze 1924a: 96f.; Fertig 2000: 13, 15).
(7) a) swaswe skuljau rodjan (Col 4:4B)
as owe.1sg speak.inf
‘as I owe it to speak’
b) Jabai nu us-þwoh izwis fotuns (Jn 13:14)
if now out-wash.pret.1sg you.dat.pl foot.acc.pl
‘if then I washed your feet’
In (7a) the Greek construction is impersonal with deĩ ‘it is necessary’ plus accusative
me ‘me’ as subject of the infinitive: hōs deĩ me lalẽsai ‘as it behoves me to speak’. In (7b)
Greek has the pronoun egō ́ ‘I’ (ei oũn egō énipsa hūmõn toùs pódas ‘id.’) that is com-
pletely omitted in the Gothic translation. Note also that the Gothic dative izwis con-
struction (‘washed to you the feet’) is different from Gk. hūmõn toùs pódas ‘of you the
feet’ and Vulgate pedēs vestrōs ‘your feet’ (§4.39).
The flipside is the implication that when an overt subject pronoun is present, as in
(8), the pronoun jūs ‘you’ (pl) is emphatic or contrastive (cf. Lenk 1910: 243, Walkden
2012: 174f.), which is generally the case in Greek as well.
(8) (tau)jaina izwis mans swa jah jūs taujaiþ im (Mt 7:12)
do.3pl.opt you.dat.pl men as also you do.2pl.opt they.dat.pl
‘let men do to you as you would (potentially) do to them’
To summarize, that null subjects are genuine Gothic is guaranteed by the fact that
sentences without overt pronouns can render Greek sentences with overt pronominal
subjects, especially in subordinate clauses. Moreover, overt Greek subjects may be
rendered in Gothic by a null pronominal subject.
2 According to Crellin (2014: 16f.), (6) illustrates that Wulfila understood Greek idiom, but (i) Gk.
́
nukhthēmeron en tõi buthõi pepoíēka ‘I’ve done (spent) a twenty-four hour period on the deep’ is not
́
idiomatic but quite literal, (ii) Gothic lacked dvandvas like nukhthēmeron ‘night-day’ (Johansson 1904:
456; Grewolds 1934: 175), and (iii) the Gothic text closely matches the Latin nocte et diē in profundō maris
fuī ‘(a) night and (a) day I was on the deep of the sea’.
9.3 Anaphoric structures 383
both anaphoric and pronominal. The same is true of the oblique case forms mis, þus,
etc., in contrast to anaphoric sis, seina.
The Gothic system of anaphors consists of reflexive sik ‘himself, herself, itself ’
(gen seina Lk 7:32, dat sis) and the possessive adjective sein- ‘his, her, its (own)’, all of
which have only oblique case forms. Sein- can be reflexive or a discourse anaphor,
i.e. context dependent rather than syntactically bound (Kiparsky 2012).
While the pronoun–anaphor contrast is too simplistic, because pronouns can have
anaphoric reference and there are different kinds of anaphors and pronominals, pro-
nominals are +R (capable of independent reference), simple and complex anaphors
(see below) are –R (see, e.g., Reuland 2008: 505f.). The basic contrast is evident in (9)
(GE 186; Harbert 2007: 196), where the pronominal ina cannot be locally bound
because it is fully specified for all features (3rd person, masculine, singular). By con-
trast, sis is specified only for 3rd person. Its antecedent cannot be 1st or 2nd person
(which can be locally bound) but can be any gender or number, these features being
valued in the syntactic computation.
(9) guþ hauheiþ ina in sis (Jn 13:32)
god glorify.3sg him in refl:dat
‘Godx (will) glorify himy in him(self)x’
[Gk. ho theòs doxásei autòn (him) en heautõi (himself) ‘id.’]
The same contrast is made by the Vulgate and most Vetus Latina versions (VL 1963:
155): . . . eum in sēmetipsō ‘him in himself ’.
That binding is anaphoric and not logophoric (very long distance) is suggested by
finite clauses in which a pronoun, not a reflexive anaphor, refers to the matrix subject
(Bernhardt 1885: 96; Douse 1886: 233; Harbert 2007: 197, 211ff.):
(10) bedun ina ei uslaubidedi im/*sis . . . galeiþan (Lk 8:32)
asked.3pl him that allow.3sg.pret.opt them/*refl:dat.pl go.inf
‘(theyx) asked himy [that [(hey) allow themx / *themselvesx to go]]’
Since Gothic is a partial null subject language, the binder (antecedent, in traditional
terms) of an anaphor can be a null subject. The null subject of participles, such as
witandei in (12), and infinitives is not mirrored in verbal agreement the way it is with
the finite verbs in (13) through (15).
384 Verbal and sentential syntax
Quirky subjects also behave as binders for anaphors, as in the dative absolute (§4.4)
in (16). More examples can be found in Harbert (1978: 275ff.).
(16) us-gaggandin imma jainþro miþ siponjam seinaim (Mk 10:46)
out-going.dat.sg.m him.dat thence with disciples.dat poss.refl:dat.pl
‘him going out from there with his disciples’
(i.e. ‘as he was leaving there (Jericho) with his disciples’)
In many Germanic and other languages a noun denoting ‘self ’ can accompany or
become a reflexive anaphor. The reason for this is well stated by Reuland (2008: 534):
“Self has minimal semantic content. It is a relational noun with the argument struc-
ture self<x,y> intrinsically denoting a reflexive relation.”
Naturally a word expressing an identity relation is well suited for use as an intensi-
fier (Reuland 2008: 534). Goth. silba ‘self ’, as the intensive predicate of identity, can be
appositional to a noun in any case, including nominative (GrGS 185):
(17) silba Daweid qiþiþ in bokom psalmo (Lk 20:42)
self.nom.sg.m David.nom say.3sg in book.dat.pl psalm.gen.pl.f
‘David himself says in the book of Psalms’
Accusative silban most often translates Gk. heautón ‘himself ’ (reflexive he ‘himself ’
plus identity intensifying autón ‘self ’), especially in contexts where the action is
directed by the subject toward itself (Rose 1976: 47; Harbert 2007: 210).3
Example (21) contains several reflexive structures, all but one with a form of silba.
(21) unte ni gadaursum domjan unsis silbans aiþþau
for neg dare.1pl class.inf us.acc self.acc.pl.m or
ga-domjan uns du þaim sik silbans
compare.inf us.acc to D.dat.pl.m refl:acc self.acc.pl.m
ana - filh - and - am; ak eis in sis
prfx-commend-PrP-dat.pl.m but prn:nom.pl.m in refl.dat
silbam sik [[sik]] silbans mitandans jah
self.dat.pl.m refl.acc self.acc.pl.m measuring.nom.pl.m and
ga-domjandans sik silbans du sis
comparing.nom.pl.m refl.acc self.acc.pl.m to refl.dat
3 The concept of ‘typically self-directed’ and ‘typically other-directed’ predicates is elaborated for the
Germanic languages by Gast (2006). Unfortunately, his four Gothic examples only illustrate silba ‘self ’.
386 Verbal and sentential syntax
The genitival phrase ‘one’s own’ is effected by a possessive adjective (mein-, þein-,
sein-) plus the genitive of silba, whose gender and number is from the referent:
(22) waurstw sein silbins kiusai
work.acc.sg.n refl:acc.sg.n self.gen.sg.m test.3sg.opt
ƕarjizuh (Gal 6:4A/B)
each.nom.sg.m
‘let each (man) test his own work’ (lit. ‘his work of (him)self ’)
(23) þeina silbons saiwala þairh-gaggiþ hairus (Lk 2:35)
your.acc.sg.f self.gen.sg.f soul.acc.sg.f through-go.3sg sword.nom.sg.m
‘a sword will pierce your (Mary’s) own soul’
While the possessive agrees in gender, number, and case with the noun it modifies,
the case of silba is appositional to the implied genitive of the possessive adjective.
To conclude this section, despite exceptions and the possibility of Greek calques,
e.g. as in (20) where sik silban translates (dat) heautõi and sis silbin renders (gen)
heautoũ, Harbert (2007: 204–11) suggests that this may have been the beginning of the
Germanic two-reflexive system. This is found, for instance, in Du. zich vs. zichzelf, Sw.
sig vs. sig själv, etc. Such systems are typologically widespread (Gast 2006, Kiparsky
2012). One possible exception is gasaljands sik faur uns (Sk 1.1.17f.) ‘giving himself up
for us’, unless the proper interpretation is ‘giving up for us’. The simple reflexive is well
documented as an anticausative (§9.8f.), e.g. ei ni afwandida sik (Sk 2.1.10) ‘that he did
not turn away’ (Lenk 1910: 253).
Unlike English, an anaphor can occur in a PP contained in a clause with a more local
potential binder. This is also true in nonfinite clauses, where the binding domain is
systematically extended and the reflexive is simple (cf. Harbert 2007: 204, 209).
Consider the following examples.
(24) jah bisaiƕands bisunjane þans bi sik sitandans (Mk 3:34)
and looking.round about.adv those.acc.pl around refl sitting.acc.pl
‘and (hex) looking round about at thosez sitting around himx’
[Gk. peri-blepsámenos kúklōi toùs perì autòn kathēménous
around-having.seen in.circle those around him sitting] (§6.23)
9.5 Binding and intervening variables 387
The binder in (24) is the null subject of the participle. In (25) and (26), the object
(phrase) of the matrix verb is the more local potential binder, ignored by the anaphor.
The participle qiþanis in (26) continues the index of the matrix object. Such construc-
tions are genuine Gothic because the Greek text for all of these has a pronoun rather
than an anaphor (cf. Ferraresi 2005: 93; Harbert 2007: 198).
There are, however, examples such as (27) that suggest that reflexivization was in
the process of being lost in participial structures (Harbert 1978: 56f.).
(27) is silba sunus gakann sik faura þamma
D self son subordinate.3sg refl before D.dat.sg.m
uf-hnaiwjandin uf ina þo alla (1Cor 15:28A)
under-abasing.dat.sg.m under he.acc D.acc.pl.n all.acc.pl.n
‘the sonx himself will be subject to the onez putting all things under himx’.
Since the other examples are in Lk 1:73f., 2:18, Mk 1:10, Eph 4:18A/B, different
translators with different grammars are possible.
The entries in (28) contain accusative and infinitive structures (§§9.24ff.), in which
the binding domain is extended to the matrix subject.
(28) a) gawaurhta twalif du wisan miþ sis (Mk 3:14)
make.3sg.pret twelve to be.inf with refl.dat
‘hex appointed (lit. caused) twelvey to be with himx’
b) þai-ei ni wildedun mik þiudanon ufar sis (Lk 19:27)
nom.pl.m-rel neg wanted.3pl me rule.inf over refl.dat
‘they whox did not want mez to rule over themx’
The anaphor is regularly bound to the higher subject rather than to the subject of its
immediate clause: (28a) [hex caused [twelvey to be with himx]] (Peeters 1997: 258);
(28b) [whox not wanted [mey to rule over themx]] (Harbert 2007: 198, 204).
Roughly parallel to a PP is an oblique-case phrase. The object of a participle in a
dative of comparison (§4.34) goes into the reflexive, as in (29) (Harbert 1978: 78).
(29) nih apaustaulus maiza þamma sandjandin sik (Jn 13:16)
‘nor [is] the apostlex greater than the onez sending himx’
In (30a), sik appears to be bound by the intervening D/NP, but sik here is not an
argument (§§9.9f.). In (30b), sik is bound by the matrix subject, ignoring the intervening
D/NP. This seems to have been the norm, but there is variation between an anaphor
and a pronoun in the same environment. Hermodsson (1952) and Harbert (1978:
55–60) cite a number of examples like (31).
(31) andho|fun auk jainaim | anahaitandam im : (Sk 8.2.5ff.)
‘theyx answered thosez rebukingz themx’ (cf. Bennett 1960: 33).
This may involve loss of reflexivization in progress with participles (so Harbert) or
different translators with different grammars. These are not necessarily contradictory
because some translators could have lost reflexivization in this environment.
Harbert (1978: 68f.) overviews the constructions in which Gothic reflexives
correspond to those in the Latin versions. For instance, nine of thirteen sentences
with participles have a pronominal in most Latin versions. Accusative and infinitive
structures generally have the reflexive in Latin. The crucial point is that reflexives have
their own rules in Gothic, Greek, and Latin. Overlap, where it occurs, is due to similar
shared rules, not to alleged imitation.
The possessive adjective sein- ‘his, her, its own’ is normally anaphoric to a subject, and
a possessed item indexed with an oblique role is in the pronominal genitive.4 In (32),
anaphoric seina is indexed with the subject and pronominal ize refers to the object.
(32) ganasjiþ managein | seina af frawaurhtim
save.3sg multitude.acc.sg.f poss.refl:acc.sg.f from sin.dat.pl
ize · (Bl 1r.26–1v.1 = Mt 1:21)
they.gen.pl.m
‘he (Jesus)x will save hisx peopley from theiry sins’
4 For sein- translating Gk. ídios ‘one’s own’ (frequently a possessive pronoun or anaphor in the New
Testament), see Marold (1883: 52–5).
9.6 The binding of sein- 389
For the same grammatical reason, the Latin versions have the same distribution of
anaphor and pronoun: populum suum ā peccātīs eōrum ‘his own people from their
sins’ (cf. VL 1972: 5).
In (33) þugkeiþ im is impersonal (lit. ‘seems to them’) and seinai depends on the
null plural subject of passive andhausjaindau because, even if im is a quirky subject, it
was noted above that binding does not extend into finite embedded clauses.
(33) þugkeiþ im auk ei in filuwaurdein seinai
seem.3sg they.dat.pl for that in much.word.ness poss.refl:dat.sg.f
andhausjaindau (Mt 6:7)
heed.3pl.opt.pass
‘for they think that in their excess verbiage they will be heeded’
Of the three forms that can distinguish pronoun and anaphor, the first ‘his’ must be the
pronoun is because it is not embedded under the clause containing the potential binder
(the first broþar), which is itself contained within a conditional clause. The second ‘his’
is pronominal because it bears a different index from the subject broþar of its own clause,
and of genitives only subjective can be binders (§9.6). The third ‘his’ is anaphoric sein-
because it bears the same index as the subject, and the dative of interest broþr seinamma
‘on behalf of his brother’ is evidently parallel to a PP in binder accessibility.5
Anaphoric binding does not occur between a matrix clause and a structure in which
a swe constituent is subject (35), but does apply with an object (36) (cf. GrGS 188).
(35) ganah siponi ei wairþai swe laisareis
suffice.3sg student.acc.sg comp become.3sg.opt as teacher.nom
is (Mt 10:25)
his
‘it is enough for the student that he become like his teacher’
5 The Greek text has pronominal autoũ for all three. The Vulgate is more precise with frāter eius uxōrem
ipsīus . . . frātrī suō ‘his brother (should take) the wife of him himself . . . for his [refl] brother’. The Vetus
Latina versions have several variants but agree on no reflexive before the last (VL 1970: 113).
390 Verbal and sentential syntax
Examples like (35) include gamanwids arjizuh wairþai swe laisaris [sic] is (Lk 6:40)
‘well prepared, everyone will become as his teacher (is)’. In such sentences, the swe
constituent is a separate clause ‘as his teacher (is)’ (GrGS 188; Harbert 1978: 40–3,
258f.; Peeters 1978; cf. Gippert 2016: 139). That is, laisar(e)is is the subject and the
nonreflexive possessive is proper, as also in the Greek and Latin versions (cf. VL 1972:
60).6 If swe were not a conjunction, an oblique case of laisareis would have been
expected. Nominative case is licensed by the mood and agreement of the implicit
verb, as also in gawasida sik swe ains þize (Mt 6:29) ‘dressed as one of these (dressed)’.
The difference between (35) and (36) shows that Gothic binding requires asym-
metrical c-command (§9.1). In (35), the subject of the swe clause is not in a position
for binding to apply. In (36), seina is bound by the subject of the implicit verb.
Many examples that appear to be exceptions are not in reality because the environ-
ment for binding is not met. There are also textual problems, and sein- can be a dis-
course anaphor.
In (37), sein- appears to be bound by a nonsubject DP/NP.
(37) distahida mikil-þūhtans gahugdai hairtins
scattered haughty-thinker.acc.pl.m imagination.dat heart.gen
seinis (Lk 1:51)
poss.refl:gen
‘he (God)x scattered the arrogantz in the mind-set of theirz (??) heart’
Most Greek and Latin versions agree on ‘their’ heart (Gk. autõn, Lat. eōrum, illōrum)
but at least the Vulgate and cod. Colbertinus (c/6) (VL 1976: 10) have dispersit superbōs
mente cordis suī ‘scattered the proud by the mind(set) of his own heart’, which is what
the Gothic should mean.
Pronominal is occurs in (38), although the binder waurstwa appears to be a subject:
(38) wairþs sa waurstwa mizdons is (1Tim 5:18A)
worthy.nom.sg.m D.nom.sg.m worker wage.gen.sg.f he.gen.sg.m
‘worthy [is] the laborer of his compensation’
While Greek has nonreflexive autoũ ‘his’ here, Latin has anaphoric suā. Sein- might be
expected in Gothic and occurs in the closely parallel (39).
6 The statement by Streitberg (GE 187) that is substitutes for the missing nom seins* misses the point
that if seins* had been syntactically necessary, it would have been present. Such forms are clearly possible,
like ON sinn, WGmc. sīn-, Lat. suus ‘id.’ (cf. Sturtevant 1951: 53f.).
9.7 Apparent exceptions to sein- binding 391
There is no substantive difference in the possessives in the Greek and Latin versions
(cf. VL 1976: 117) between (38) and (39). Possible accounts include: (i) waurstwa
in (38) is a predicate, waurstwja in (39) a subject; (ii) loss of reflexivization in progress
in this construction (Harbert 1978: 57f.); (iii) different translators with different
grammars.
The syntactic minimal pair in (40) illustrates sein- bound by the matrix subject and
is, which appears parallel but occurs in a coordinated adjunct (cf. Harbert 1978: 42,
259f., with different examples), which is outside the binding domain.
(40) Iesus us-iddja miþ siponjam seinam . . . aurtigards
Jesus out-went.3sg with disciple.dat.pl poss.refl:dat.pl garden
in þanei ga-laiþ Iesus jah siponjos is (Jn 18:1)
into which prfx-went Jesus and disciple.nom.pl his
‘Jesus went out with his disciples . . .
a garden into which Jesus went, and (also) his disciples (went)’
Greek has a pronominal genitive autoũ ‘his’ in both places, but the Vulgate and Vetus
Latina manuscripts with the same structure (VL 1963: 188) independently have the
same distribution as the Gothic for the same syntactic reason.
As noted above, binding does not extend into finite embedded clauses. In one
apparent exception (cf. Harbert 1978: 38) in (41), sein- is a discourse anaphor.
(41) akei was | kunnands þatei | swaleikamma wal|dufnja mahtais
but was knowing comp such.dat.sg.n authority.dat.sg.n power.gen.sg.f
seinaizos | nauþs ustaiknida | wesi : (Sk 1.2.12–17)
poss.refl:gen.sg.f force revealed.nom.sg.f be.3sg.pret.opt
‘but hex was aware that by such authority
the force of hisx power would be revealed’
Pronominal is would allow for too many possibilities as to whose power was at issue.
Sein- forces reference to the highest subject.
Sein- can be bound by a subjective genitive (Harbert 2007: 197), as in (42).
(42) in quma fraujins . . . miþ allaim þaim weihaim seinaim
in coming lord.gen with all D saints poss.refl:dat.pl.m
‘in the Lord’sx coming with all hisx saints’ (1Thess 3:13B)
Both the Greek and Latin versions agree on a pronominal genitive. In (42) and (43),
sein- is anaphoric to an actor DP within the PP that contains it.
392 Verbal and sentential syntax
Since the matrix subject is not third person, the potential of confusion does not arise.
9.8 Reciprocals
Reciprocality is a kind of anaphora that implies at least a dual relation and turn-taking
or sharing. Reciprocals receive a thematic role and are nearly always locally bound by
the subject of their clause (Everaert 2008: 572).
In Gothic, reciprocal ‘each other’, ‘one another’ is most frequently expressed by
means of a form of a reflexive or pronominal anaphor plus the adverb misso ‘in turn,
alternately; mutually, reciprocally, interchangeably’:
(44) rodidedun du sis misso bi alla þo ga-dabanona (Lk 24:14G)
‘they spoke to one another about all those (things that had) occurred’
[lit. ‘spoke to themselves in turn, i.e. now to one, now to the other’]
The second ‘us’ is omitted because of the change in construction. The literal meaning
is ‘being in envy reciprocally’, i.e. ‘with one another’.
Following is an example of the reciprocal construction with a possessive adjective:
(47) izwaros misso kauriþos bairaiþ (Gal 6:2AB)
your.acc.pl.f recip burden.acc.pl.f bear.2pl.opt
‘endure one another’s burdens’
9.9 Pseudo-reflexives and passive replacements 393
Since anþar ( . . . ) anþar can mean ‘one . . . the/an other’, it is inherently suited to
express the reciprocal relation ‘one another’ (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 584; Sturtevant 1930:
106f.; 1947b: 409f.), as in (48) and (49).
(48) sijum anþar anþaris liþus (Eph 4:25A/B)
be.1pl one.nom.sg.m other.gen.sg.m member.nom.sg.m
‘we are members one of the other’ (i.e. ‘parts of each other in the same body’)
In (51), galesun sik corresponds more closely to pre-Vulg. congregāta est (VL 1970: 27)
‘gathered’ than to the Greek present middle sunágetai ‘gathers’ (Alexandrian text) or
́
the aorist passive sunēkhthē ‘was gathered’ (Byzantine main text).
(51) galesun sik du imma manageins filu (Mk 4:1)
gathered.3pl refl to him.dat multitude.gen.sg much
‘there gathered to him a great multitude’
The Bologna fragment attests the hapax verb fairjan* ‘remove’, reflexive ‘go far from,
withdraw’ in (53), equivalent to Gk. apostẽis (Ps 38:22) ‘may you withdraw’ (FT 14,
35f.; Falluomini 2014: 293, 296; 2017; Schuhmann 2016: 67).
(53) g(u)þ meins ni fair|jais þuk af mis · (Bl 2v.10f.)
god my neg withdraw.2sg.opt you.acc from me
‘my God, may you not abandon me’
The simple reflexive is a frequent substitute for the passive, especially with infinitival
structures (GE 210), as illustrated in (54).
(54) bidjam izwis, broþrjus . . . | du ni sprauto wagjan
ask.1pl you.acc.pl brothers to neg quickly shake
izwis (2Thess 2:1f.A)
refl.acc
‘we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken/upset’
In one very problematic passage (see Harbert 1978: 76f., 280), which may be active,
a genitive seems to bind sik.
(55) at weihai auk is | mahtai : unana|siuniba unse|lein
at holy.dat.sg.f for his power.dat.sg.f invisibly wickedness
ize nauh disskaidandein | jah ni uslaub|jandein
their still dispersing.dat.sg.f and neg allowing.dat.sg.f
faur | mel sik gahaban : (Sk 8.1.3–10)
before time refl seize.inf
‘hisx holy power invisibly still dispersing their wickedness and not allowing
himx to be seized before the (right) time’
At marks the dative absolute (§6.7), in which subjects bind reflexives (§9.3). For is
to be the binder would require generalization from subjective genitive (§9.7) to non-
objective. Uslaubjan* takes dat complements (§4.43), and, unless sik is subject of an
accusative and infinitive construction, it must be the object of gahaban. The binder
can be the null subject of uslaubjandein rather than is, i.e. ‘[hex] not allowing [someone]
to seize himx’.
9.10 Anticausatives
Simple reflexives can have an anticausative function. A causative verb has a cause
feature, which can be removed by an anticausative operation that leaves only the
inchoative feature (Pylkkänen 2008; Miller 2010: ii. chs. 6f., w. lit). An English example
9.10 Anticausatives 395
is you broke the vase (= ‘you caused the vase to become broken’) beside anticausative/
inchoative the vase broke (= ‘the vase became broken’).
Consider the two simple reflexives in (56).
(56) ni blandaiþ izwis miþ imma, ei
neg mix.2pl.opt you.acc.pl.refl with him.dat that
gaskamai sik (2Thess 3:14A/B)
shame.3sg.opt refl
‘do not mingle with him, that he may be ashamed’
Blandan ‘mix, mingle’ can be causative or, with a simple reflexive, anticausative.
The second verb in (56), skaman, usually translates a Greek middle (e.g. aiskhúno-
mai ‘I am ashamed’), and always occurs with a simple reflexive ‘shame oneself ’, i.e. ‘be
ashamed (of [+gen])’ (cf. GGS 230), as in (57a, b).
(57) a) graban ni mag, bidjan skama mik (Lk 16:3)
dig.inf neg can.1sg beg.inf shame.1sg me.acc.sg.refl
‘I cannot dig, I am ashamed to beg’
b) unte saei skamaiþ sik meina jah waurde
for he.that shame.3sg refl me.gen and word.gen.pl
meinaize . . . jah sunus mans skamaiþ sik
my.gen.pl.n . . . and son man.gen.sg shame.3sg refl
is (Mk 8:38)
him.gen.sg
‘for he who is ashamed of me and my words, . . . also the son of man is ashamed
of him’
There is some agreement that what look like reflexives in the anticausative function
are not arguments (Everaert 1986; Harbert 2007: 206; Reuland 2008: 522; Miller 2010:
ii. chs. 6, 7, w. lit.). Two facts suggest this is true in Gothic.
The first is that a reflexive in this function violates binding with the matrix subject:
(58) gasaiƕandei Paitru warmjandan sik . . . qaþ (Mk 14:67)
seeing.nom.sg.f Peter.acc.sg.m warming.acc.sg.m refl said.3sg
‘(shex) seeing Peterz warmingz (himselfz) up, said’
If sik were an actual anaphor, it should mean ‘herself ’ (cf. Douse 1886: 234).
The second fact is that anticausative pseudo-reflexives do not trigger agreement
with themselves; cf. (59).
(59) ik galaisida mik in þaim-ei im ganohiþs
I taught me in dat.pl.n-rel be.1sg content.nom.sg.m
wisan (Phil 4:11B)
be.inf
‘I learned to be content in whatever (circumstances) I am (in)’
396 Verbal and sentential syntax
The fact that ganohiþs is nominative is usually explained away (e.g. GCS 6, 59) as
a precise translation of Greek, where nom autárkēs is correct because of émathon
‘I learned’ rather than ‘I taught myself ’. The assumption has been that the controller of
the infinitival subject must be mik rather than ik. In fact, galaisjan (8x, 4 dupl) in six
of its occurrences is a simple reflexive (mik Phil 4:11B; þuk 2Tim 3:14A/B; sik 1Tim 2:11,
5:4A/B, Sk 5.1.17f.; izwis 4:9B), never accompanied by silba- ‘self ’. Moreover, the mean-
ing is invariably ‘learn’ (Gk. manthánein), not ‘teach oneself ’ (cf. Douse 1886: 243;
GCS 48f.; Berard 1993a: 293), which should be *(ga)laisjan sik silban. Simply, galaisjan
sik ‘learn’ is the anticausative of (ga)laisjan ‘teach’, and forms that appear to be reflex-
ives in anticausatives are not arguments but case absorbers that focus the event on
involvement of the subject. Since mik is not an argument, it cannot be the controller
of the infinitival subject, which must therefore be ik (cf. Berard 1993a: 243f., 290f.).
Lexical aspect
Stative Unchanging situations with successive intervals that do not differ and are
expected to continue, e.g. like, fear, be asleep, know.
Processual Continuous situations that change in a constant manner but do not continue
by inertia, e.g. work, sing, develop, slumber, lurk.
Cyclic Iterative lexical processes that return to the initial configuration, e.g. twitch,
quiver, trample, jostle, twiddle.
9.11–12 Aspect and verbal prefixes 397
Process The intermediate phase consists of incremental changes, e.g. hasten back,
climb.
State A boundary represents the inception of a new state, e.g. catch sight of, arrive
at, reach.
Grammatical aspect
Perfect Situation presented as a state extending back in time from the contextual
occasion and projected to continue in the future.
Perfective Situation bounded around contextual occasion (not the here-and-now), after
which no more activity is projected and the resulting state will continue.
7 How telicity is determined is disputed (see Miller 2010: ii. chs. 6, 7; Filip 2011; Katz 2016: ch. 1—all w. lit).
On one account, bounded roots make telic predicates, unbounded atelic. “[A]n entity is bounded if it is
conceptualized as having a clear boundary in time and/or space” (Thompson 2006: 213). Perfectivizing
particles and affixes are linked to high transitivity and telicity (ibid. 214; Basilico 2008). Perfectivity is
bounded aspect, progressive unbounded. Since some particles and affixes involve a functional projection,
Functional Phrase accounts of telicity have been proposed. One general agreement is that telicity must be
separated from the lexical semantics of individual verbs (Filip 2011: 1209f., w. lit). For instance, the result
state contributes to telicity, as in (i-c), which Ramchand (2008: §2.1.2) contrasts with (i-b).
(i) a) *John ate the bagel until 3:00.
b) Mary dried the cocoa beans (for 12 hours/in 12 hours).
c) Mary dried the cocoa beans bone dry (in only 12 hours/*for 12 hours).
It is unlikely that bone dry in (i-c) raises to SpecAspP to check telicity, and there are indeed multiple
sources of telicity and perfectivity (Basilico 2008), but feature valuing is not an implausible analysis.
398 Verbal and sentential syntax
between perfective and imperfective verbs.8 His main perfectivizer (ga-) is excep-
tional (with reference to the Greek text) 66% of the time (Beer 1921: 113f.). For the
independence of ga- from Greek aspects and its uses in rendering other (or no) Greek
prefixed verbs, see Beer (1915), Trnka (1929/1982), Rice (1932), Mirowicz (1935),
Scherer (1954, 1964), Pollak (1929, 1971, 1975).
Mourek (1890) and Beer (1915–21) argue that most preverbs have nothing to do
with perfectivization. For Genis (2015) they are terminative. Bucsko (2011: 61f.) lists 63
verb–prefix constructs as idiomatic (71 with some idiomaticity), e.g. Goth. us-qiman
[come out] ‘kill’, 92 as metaphorical, e.g. dis-tahjan* [tear apart] ‘destroy, waste’ (ibid.
23f.), many polysemous, e.g. us-bairan (i) compositional ‘carry out’, (ii) metaphorical
‘produce’, (iii) idiomatic ‘answer’ (ibid. 52, 124). There were also stylistic choices (Götti
1974), and prefixes can have transitivizing properties (Mirarchi 1982; see ch. 6).
Us- and ut ‘out’ compete, but in composition they are not identical; cf. utgaggan
(2x) ‘go out, exit’ : usgaggan (102x) ‘come/go (out, up)’, and only the former is resulta-
tive and contrasted with inngaggan ‘enter’ (Goetting 2007: 325f.; cf. Götti 1974: 40f.).
There is some correlation between tense, nonprefixed processual, and prefixed
nonprocessual Aktionsart. In contrast to the Germanic preterite, Greek had an aorist
(completive, terminative, and inceptive past; aspectual and nontemporal in many
infinitive structures), an imperfect (processual past), and a perfect. The Gospel of
Mark has 111 Greek imperfects translated 109x by Gothic preterites, 72 preverbless
(Wood 2002: 55f.); 102 PrPs are rendered 86x with a PrP, 61 preverbless (ibid. 65).
Out of 324 Greek aorists, 231 are translated by Gothic preterites, 163 prefixed. The
remaining 93 aorists have future reference rendered by Gothic nonpast forms, 48
prefixed (ibid. 81). The 121 aorist participles are represented by 103 PrPs, 74 prefixed
(ibid. 107f.). In sum, in the Gospel of Mark, Greek processual pasts are prefixed in
Gothic only 169x out of 472, but nonprocessual pasts are prefixed 326x out of 507
(ibid. 223).
8 Makovskij (2011) and most other Slavic scholars except Kuryłowicz (1964: 101f.) deny the perfectiv-
izing use of ga- and other prefixes because aspect is not consistently indicated. Also, aspect and Aktionsart
have been confused (Mirowicz 1935). Marache (1960) claims ga- was event-centered and not subject-
centered. For Trovato (2009), a ga- verb differs from the simplex in actionality. Similarly, for Metzger
(2017), the simplex is subject-focused and the prefixed verb focuses on the effects of the action. Maslov
2004 [1959] argues that ga- was telic, not perfective. West (1981b, 1982), Wedel (1997), and Kotin (2012:
294f., 312f., 397f., 492) maintain that both occur. Lloyd’s ‘complexive’ consists of prefixed forms expressing
actionally, not just temporally, completed (or punctual) action (Lloyd 1979: 141ff.). Beer (1921), Pudić
(1957), and Metzger (2017) discuss all the ga- verbs. Pudić claims aspect was an optional semantic
category. He, West (1981c), Wood (2002: 222–7), and Genis (2015) argue that a system like the Slavic was
developing. For Katz (2016), it was declining. The aspect of Greek imperatives is rarely captured (Cuendet
1924). The Gothic infinitive (±ga-) renders the aspectually different Greek infinitives (Guxman 1940:
121). Nevertheless, parallels occur between ga- and old Slavic perfective verbs (Lloyd 1979; Wedel &
Christchev 1989), and in the use of infinitives with or without ga- and Slavic pfctv or impfctv infinitives
after affirmative and negated modal verbs (Leiss 2012), but Leiss (2018) denies the correlation between
negated verbs and imperfectivity in Gothic. In purpose clauses ga- verbs correspond to the Greek aorist
subjunctive, unprefixed to the present subjunctive, but also to the aorist subjunctive when semantically
bounded or bearing another prefix (Pennington 2010: 383–98).
9.13 Aspectual properties of ga- 399
Greek stative perfects are rendered by a nonpast or past tense in Gothic, depending
on whether the state is present or past. For the former, cf. wait jag gatraua (Rom 14:14C)
= Gk. oĩda kaì pépeismai ‘I know and am persuaded’ (see trauan §5.17). Nonstative
and change of state perfects become Gothic preterites (Crellin 2014).
Conversely, an unprefixed form like laisida translates a Greek imperfect edídasken
‘was/kept teaching, taught (repeatedly)’. A punctual/inchoative verb like wairþan
‘become’, on the other hand, has a simple past warþ translating egéneto ‘(it) got-to-be,
happened, came to pass’, and sometimes occurs with an adjective where Greek has an
inchoative aorist passive, e.g. wairþ hrains (Mt 8:3) ‘get clean’, translating impv
katharísthēti ‘get cleaned’ (result state) (§§11.13, 11.14).
Some verbs, like galeiþan ‘come, go’, are always prefixed, as in (60).
(60) land bauhta jah þarf galeiþan jah saiƕan þata (Lk 14:18)
land bought.1sg and need.1sg go.inf and see.inf D.acc.sg.n
‘I bought land and need to go and see it’
The main Gothic perfectivizing and telic prefix was ga-, which has many functions
including idiomatic and metaphorical (Bucsko 2011: 176–9, 254–67). In all likelihood,
one must recognize ga-1 (61a) collective/sociative, and ga-2 (61b) completive/telic.9
(61) a) ga-qiman* = Lat. con-venīre ‘come together’ (see qiman §5.8)
b) ga-taujan = Lat. cōn-ficere ‘do up; complete; accomplish’
With (61a), cf. ga-gaggan ‘assemble’. Ga- renders Gk. sun- ‘together, with’ 40x (Rice
1932: 131) marking terminative manner of action (Josephson 1976: 167). Miþ was more
productive as true sociative, e.g. miþ-rodjan* ‘speak with’, miþ-ga-dauþnan* ‘perish
(ga-dauþnan) along with’. Miþ- renders Gk. sun- ‘with, together’ 53x (Rice 1932: 131).
Ga-1 occurs on compound nouns, e.g. ga-daila ‘co-sharer’ (§7.6), and ga-2 on nom-
inalizations, e.g. ga-nists ‘salvation’ (§8.9) (Rousseau 2016: 401).
Five verbs have ga-1 before ga-2, which is nearest the root (§6.37) (Rousseau 2016:
402ff.; cf. Wilmanns 1896: 129; Pollak 1974): ga-ga-haftjan* ‘join together’, ga-ga-tilon*
(2x) ‘fit together’, ga-ga-wairþjan (1Cor 7:11A) ‘be reconciled’, ga-ga-wairþnan
(2Cor 5:20A/B) ‘get reconciled’, ga-ga-mainjan* (Mk 7:23) ‘defile’, ga-ga-leikon* sik
(2Cor 11:13, 14, 15B) ‘fashion oneself, masquerade as’ (but derived from galeiks, there
is no simplex *leikon: Dorfeld 1885: 2).
9 Goth. ga-2 stresses effectuation toward actualization (Josephson 1976) like the Hittite local and telic
ptc -kan; cf. OHitt. kuen- ‘strike’ but with -kan ‘strike dead’ (GHL 372ff.). Hitt. -kan, Lat. co(m)-, Goth.
ga-2 go back to PIE 2.*ko(m) ‘completely; perfectivity’ (Dunkel 2009: 40, LIPP 2.429f.; Miller 2014a: 330);
ga-1 is from 1.*ko(m) ‘together, with’ (LIPP 2.422ff.). The VL reflex of *ha- to ga- shows that it was pretonic
(e.g. Bennett 1970; Ivanov 1999; VG 60, 440) or generalized from internal -ga-´ etc. (Bammesberger
1981a).
400 Verbal and sentential syntax
Past participles tend to have more ga- forms, e.g. satiþ (to satjan ‘set, put’) occurs
only at 1Tim 1:9A/B, but forms of ga-satiþs occur 8x (4 dupl); bundans (bindan* ‘bind’)
occurs only at Lk 8:29, but forms of ga-bundans occur 11x; etc. (Pollak 1971, w. lit).
The ga- forms often translate a verb that is noniterative/durative, nonprogressive,
ingressive, egressive/terminative, punctual/instantaneous (cf. §5.19 and Pollak 1929:
23ff.). In Yoshida’s sample (1980: 94f.), a ga- construct translates a Greek aorist 531x
(286 indicative, 138 participle) but a present only 123x (58 ind, 32 part). By contrast,
a nonprefixed Gothic verb renders a Greek present 510x (209 ind, 143 part) but an
aorist 339x (98 ind, 47 part).10 To concretize, sat (Mt 26:69C) is durative ‘was sitting’,
gasat (Lk 4:20) ingressive/telic ‘sat down’ (cf. Feuillet 2014: 89). Gatawida translates a
Greek aorist 49x while tawida does so only 8x (Pollak 1964: 58).
Apart from rendering different Greek tenses, many contrasts occur in Gothic, e.g.
hausjan ‘to hear’ : ga-hausjan ‘listen up; take heed’; taujan ‘do’ : gataujan ‘complete,
accomplish, produce’; waurkjan ‘work, effect’ : (telic) gawaurkjan ‘bring about,
achieve, produce’ (details in Lloyd 1979: 294–302). For telic gameljan ‘write down’
(meljan ‘write’) and anameljan ‘sign up’ (= Greek aorist inf apográpsasthai) see (62).
(62) a) namna izwara ga-melida sind (Lk 10:20)
name.nom.pl.n your.nom.pl.n prfx-written.nom.pl.n are
‘your names are written down (registered)’
b) ur-rann þan jah Iosef . . . | ana-meljan (Lk 2:4f.)
out-ran then also Joseph on-sign.inf
‘Joseph also went forth to sign the register’ (Greiner 1992: 102)
While ligan* ‘lie, be lying down’ functions for all aspects, gasitan regularly translates
Gk. kathẽsthai ‘sit down’ (change of state, telic) and normally (but not always) con-
trasts with sitan ‘be (in the process of) sitting’ (noncompletive, atelic) (Streitberg 1891:
85ff.; Lloyd 1979: 174f., 278f.). Similarly, gadraus renders épesen ‘fell’ vs. unprefixed
draus ‘fell, was falling’ (Streitberg 1891: 99). Gaþaursnoda ‘dried up’ renders a Greek
aorist (exēránthē) and should contrast with *þaursnoda ‘became dry’. Numerous
contrasts are discussed in Lloyd (1979), Katz (2016), and Metzger (2017). See (63).
(63) usfullnoda mel du bairan jah ga-bar sunu (Lk 1:57)
became.complete time to bear and pfrx-bore son
‘the time for giving birth came around, and (Elizabeth) bore a son’
The same contrast occurs in Old High German: zi beranne inti gibar (Tatian 4.9)
‘to bear and she bore’ (Wilmanns 1896: 168).
Prefixes other than ga- could be used for telicity. Contrast itan ‘to eat’ with fra-itan*
‘eat up, devour’ (Harbert 2007: 40, w. lit; for the register, see fra-ïtan* in App). In jah
in fon atlagjada (Mt 7:19) ‘and is laid upon the fire’, at ‘to, towards’ makes the verb telic.
10 Such raw figures say nothing about unprefixed verbs, many of which are (or can be) punctual or telic.
They also ignore the other functions of ga-. For instance, like prefixed verbs in Slavic, ga- with the nonpast
can indicate capability (Kuryłowicz 1964: 102): augona habandans ni gasai iþ, jah ausona habandans ni
gahauseiþ (Mk 8:18) ‘having eyes can you not see, and having ears can you not hear?’.
9.14 Other functions of ga- 401
Of the many functions of ga-, the main lexical aspect use is to make a verb telic,
punctual, instantaneous, non–iterative-durative. States have inherent duration, which
explains why stative verbs do not take ga-. Motion verbs like gaggan ‘go’ are nonpunc-
tual processuals. Modal verbs have their own properties and are outside the domain
of lexical aspect contrasts (cf. Streitberg 1920: 198). Declaratives (claim etc.), epistemic
verbs (think etc.), including pseudo-perception predicates (propositional see, hear, etc.),
factive emotives (rejoice, regret, etc.), and semifactives like know often pattern together
as reflective verbs. Like states, these verbs typically have duration, are aspectually
unbounded and atelic, and are consequently infelicitous with markers of telicity,
punctuality, etc. When verbs in these classes take ga-, the prefixed form has a different
meaning, e.g. 1.munan ‘think’ : ga-munan ‘remember’; mag ‘can’ : ga-mag ‘matters’;
qiþan ‘say’ : ga-qiþan* ‘agree’; haitan ‘call; order’ : ga-haitan* ‘convoke; promise’.
Amid the many shades of meaning imparted by ga- (Scherer 1964; Pollak 1975), syn-
tactic functions include temporal completion (Scherer 1970; M. Krause 1987: 209;
Katz 2016) and definiteness (Leiss 2000, 2007; Kotin 2012: 214–20, 2018).11
Definiteness
For Leiss and Kotin, the incipient definite article replaces the older perfectivizing
function of ga-, as a result of which there are trade-offs, as in (64).
(64) a) gaulaubjats þatei magjau þata taujan (Mt 9:28)
‘do you two believe that I can do this?’ (§5.25)
b) ga-salboda fotuns Iesua (Jn 12:3)
‘she anointed Jesus’ feet’ (§4.39)
In (64a), definite þata allows for the nonprefixed verb. Contrast (64b), in which
definiteness is indicated by the prefixed verb. For other examples, in which animacy
may play a role, see §6.44.
11 Supposedly ga- is causal in anticipating an effect (Scherer 1978), but this is vitiated by the near
repetition of gamatidedun þan jah sadai waurþun (Mk 8:8) ‘they then ate and were sated’ in jah matidedun
jah sadai waurþun allai (Lk 9:17) ‘and they all ate and were sated’. The effect is different but how does ga-
‘anticipate’ this? The Greek text has aor éphagon ‘they ate’ and the Vet. Lat. MSS (VL 1970: 67, 1976: 103)
have mandūcāvērunt ‘id.’ in both places. The Luke translator interpreted the Vorlage to mean ‘they finished
eating’, ‘they consumed (all) the food’, hence ga-matidedun (Wedel & Christchev 1989: 202). The Greek
passive ekhortásthēsan ‘were sated’ is reformulated with a predicate adjective construction in Gothic
(cf. Berard 1993a: 298).
402 Verbal and sentential syntax
In (66a) gasai iþ is subsequent to sai iþ (Scherer 1970: 90f.). For (66b), ga- ren-
ders a perfect and West (1981b: 255) compares OIr. ro, but there is no *blindjan or
*daubjan. One can unify (66a, b) by taking ga- to signal entry into a new state,
whence also its use in futures, e.g. gahailja ina (Mt 8:7) ‘I will heal him’ (Bernhardt
1870a: 160f.).
Temporal completion
Prefixed forms can mark temporal completion (Katz 2016), for instance in the past
(cf. Bernhardt 1870a: 162f.):
(67) jah froþ-un þammei siun ga-saƕ (Lk 1:22)
and realized-3pl comp vision prfx-saw.3sg
‘and they realized that he had seen a vision’
Event actuality/factuality
Event actuality, though sometimes confused with perfectivity, is not the same
(see Miller 2010: ii. 194–202), and ga- is sometimes equivalent to ‘really’ (Bernhardt
1870a: 159):
(68) ei saiƕandans ni gasaiƕaina, jah gahausjandans ni fraþjaina (Lk 8:10)
‘that seeing they not really see, and (though) really hearing they not understand’
9.15 The nonpast (incompletive) participle 403
This construction has been widely discussed (e.g. Kotin 2012: 218, w. lit) in the context
of definiteness and perfectivity, but unprefixed Iūdās sa lewjands ina occurs at Jn 18:5
(§6.45). For additional examples, see Gering (1874: 310.), Schrader (1874: 12).
The calque in (69) may have been provided for by the type in (70).
(70) jah wairþand mannans sik frijondans
and become.3pl men.nom.pl refl:acc.pl loving.nom.pl.m
‘and people (will) be(come) lovers of themselves’ (2Tim 3:2A; friondans B)
For (70), the Gothic text differs from the Gk. ésontai gàr hoi ánthrōpoi phílautoi ‘for
people will be self-lovers’ with a compound phíl-autoi [love-self] ‘self-lovers’ (§7.1).
Interestingly, the Latin versions are closer to the Gothic: erunt hominēs sēipsōs amantēs
‘people will be lovers of themselves’ (lit. them-very-own-selves loving).
Another calque, ultimately of Hebrew origin (Rubio 2009: 218; Drinka 2011: 45f.),
features the s- nominative with ‘be’ to insist on progressivity, habituality, or durativity
in a past time-frame (cf. Mossé 1938: i. 21–30; 1956: 179f., 273). Metlen counted 97
examples of this construction, 21 differing from the Greek (1932: 30ff.), plus 26 PrPs
with wairþan ‘get to be’ (Metlen 1932: 34f.). Drinka (2011: 58) calls them all progressives.
12 By Metlen’s count, in Matthew (268 verses), Gothic has 187 PrPs and the Greek 202, with overlap
in 174 instances. For John (550 verses), there are 142 PrPs in Gothic, only 5 without Greek equivalent,
but 100 Greek participles not so rendered in Gothic. In the 753 verses of Luke, Gothic has 547 PrPs, only
18 without Greek equvalent, versus 614 Greek PrPs. In Mark (592 verses), there are 438 Gothic PrPs,
only 16 without Greek equivalent and 39 Greek participles with no PrP in Gothic. In the Gospels, then,
Metlen (1932: 9–14) counts 1262 Gothic PrPs with Greek equivalent, and 48 without. In the Gothic New
Testament, Metlen counts 1788 PrPs rendering a Greek participle, and only 142 that do not. In the total
corpus then available, Metlen counts 2067 PrPs. Of the 246 Greek participles in the Gospels that are not
translated with a PrP in Gothic, 100 are rendered by a relative clause (ibid. 15), e.g. saei sai iþ (Mt 5:28
etc.) ‘he who sees’, typical of the Latin versions (cf. VL 1972: 24), for Gk. ho blépōn ‘the seeing one’
(cf. Gering 1874: 313, 317, 319f.). Some are rendered by adjectives (Gering 1874: 301f.), others by miscel-
laneous clause types. Finally, a Gothic PrP can render other Greek categories (Meyer 1884: 538f.), e.g.
manna þrutsfill [§7.6] habands (Mt 8:2) ‘a man having leprosy’ for Gk. leprós ‘leprous; leper’.
404 Verbal and sentential syntax
Rousseau (2016: 198f.) labels (71a) ambiguous (but on p. 201 says it is grammaticalized
because of -s) and (71b) as progressive. These may be processual (lexical aspect), but
there is no evidence that they are grammatical progressives, and are likely durative.
(71) a) was Iohannes daupjands in auþidai (Mk 1:4)
‘John was baptizing in the desert’ (sc. throughout that period of time)
b) Iþ Seimon Paitrus was standands jah warmjands sik (Jn 18:25)
‘but Simon Peter was standing and warming himself ’
[Gk. ẽn dè Símōn Pétros hestōs kaì thermainómenos
was but Simon Peter standing and getting warm]
This is matched in several Vet. Lat. MSS (VL 1976: 32): habēns ventilābrum in manū
suā et pūrgābit ‘id.’ (Odefey 1908: 74, 108; Henß 1957).
In addition to the functions enumerated above, several other well-defined uses of the
PrP occur (see also §5.32).
13 Examples like usbeidands ist ana im (Lk 18:7) ‘will he be delaying long over them?’ are supposedly
independent of the Greek text (Lühr 2012: 240f.), but the Byzantine main text has the same participial
construction makrothūmõn ep’ autoĩs ‘id.’.
The alleged contrast between (alls hiuhma) was . . . beidandans ‘(the entire crowd (sg)) was . . . praying
(pl)’ (Lk 1:10) and warþ . . . standands ‘came to be standing’ (Lk 1:11) does not exist. The Greek
́
ōphthē . . . hestōś and pre-Vulgate apparuit ~ vīsus est . . . stāns (VL 1976: 3), like the Goth. warþ . . . stan-
dands, all mean ‘(an angel) appeared, standing . . . ’. It is an appositional, not a periphrastic structure.
9.16 Other PrP structures 405
Although the Greek has a participle at Jn 13:20 as well as at Mt 10:40, the other two
passages have a relative clause.
The participle in this function is frequent in Greek, and many calques occur, as
probably in (75).
(75) þana gaggand-an du mis ni huggr-eiþ jah
D.acc.sg.m coming-acc.sg.m to me.dat neg hunger-3sg and
þana galaubjand-an du mis ni þaurs-eiþ
D.acc.sg.m believing-acc.sg.m to me neg thirst.3sg
‘the one coming (he who comes) to me will not hunger (Jn 6:35)
and the one believing (he who believes) in me will not thirst’
This is not a calque on Gk. theōreĩ tòn lúkon erkhómenon ‘(he) observes the wolf com-
ing’ because the construction can occur independently of the Greek (Piras 2007: 242).
Compare the Latin versions (VL 1963: 112) with videt lupum venientem ‘id.’ . The par-
ticiple imparts duration to qiman, which can be punctual (cf. Götti 1974: 65). This is
clear by contrast to the infinitive in (77) as a perception verb complement.
(77) jabai nu ga-saiƕ-iþ sunu mans us-steig-an (Jn 6:62)
if now prfx-see-2pl son.acc man.gen out-climb-inf
‘now if you see the son of man ascend’
The infinitive in this use is not durative or processual. Contrast the PrP in (78).
(78) gasaƕ satanan |swe lauhmunja driusandan us himina
saw.1sg Satan like lightning falling.acc.sg from heaven
‘I beheld Satan falling like lightning from heaven’ (Bl 2r.11f. = Lk 10:18)
406 Verbal and sentential syntax
Driusandan translates Gk. pesónta ‘falling’. Latin versions are divided among cadentem
‘falling’, dēscendentem ‘descending’, cecidisse ‘to have fallen’ (VL 1976: 120; details in
Falluomini 2014: 288).
Purposive (?)
The PrP seems very rarely to function purposively, as in (80).
(80) sa–ei habai ausona hausjandona,
nom.sg.m-rel have.3sg.opt ear.acc.pl.n hearing.acc.pl.n
ga-hausj-ai (Mk 4:9, Lk 14:35 (ga-); cf. Mt 11:15, Mk 4:23, 7:16)
prfx-hear-3sg.opt
‘he that have ears [for?] hearing, let him heed’ (cf. Wilmanns 1896: 168)
Bare participles do not usually express purpose. It is also possible to construe (80) as
‘hearing ears; ears with the capacity to hear’ (Douse 1886: 251; Maslov 2004 [1959]:
264; Lloyd 1979: 151; cf. Rousseau 2016: 197). Hausjandona has also been interpreted as
a substitute for a relative clause þaiei hausjand ‘that hear’ (e.g. Scherer 1970: 93), except
that those typically have a D-word (§9.16). Either way, the construction is nothing like
the Greek of the extant versions: ho ékhōn õta akoúein akouétō ‘the one having ears to
hear shall hear’. While Berard (1993a: 326f.) argues that the construction involves a
noun complement rather than a purposive adjunct, the Vulgate and many Vet. Lat.
MSS (VL 1970: 29; 1976: 175) have aurēs audiendī ‘ears of hearing’, and at Mk 4:9 cod.
Bezae has a classical Latin purposive aurēs ad audiendum ‘ears for hearing’. A purposive
has been assumed for Gothic (cf. Streitberg 1891: 83), and Metlen (1932: 18f.) suggests
influence of the Latin gerund constructions. Although he cites a few other potential
gerundial uses, and Rousseau (2003: 732f.) cites examples with the semantics of capacity
and necessity, the purposive use of the bare PrP is unparalleled. Berard speculates that
(some) Gothic translator(s) reacted against the tautology of ‘ears to hear’. One extant
passage has a purposive with the expected syntax: ausona du hausjan (Lk 8:8) ‘ears for
hearing’ (Odefey 1908: 59, w. lit; cf. §9.24).
14 With other verbs, the PrP, like the P(P)P, is a subject adjunct, e.g. jah qam sai ands (Jn 9:7) ‘and he
came (back) seeing’, which describes only his state, not the manner of his return. A preceding PrP is often
subordinated, e.g. ei siggwandans mageiþ fraþjan frodein meinai (Eph 3:4B) ‘that reading (this) you can
perceive my understanding’ (cf. Metlen 1932: 25). For other preverbal uses, see §5.32.
9.17 Absolute constructions 407
Participial clauses occur in various cases (Grimm 1837: 887–919; Metlen 1938;
Morgaleva 2008a, b). The absolute is predicative, never attributive (Grimm, p. 895).
Dative absolutes are the most frequent (Winkler 1896: 118–40, denying true absolutes),
many accompanied by at (§6.7), and correspond to Greek genitive or Latin ablative
absolutes (Delbrück 1897: 495; Durante 1969). Accusative absolutes are infrequent, and
do not always correspond to absolute constructions in Greek (cf. Lücke 1876: 26ff.).
Consider the accusative absolute in (81) and the dative absolute in (82).15
(81) Iþ þuk taujandan armaion ni witi
but you.acc.sg doing.acc.sg.m almsgiving.acc.sg.f neg know.3sg.opt
hleidumei þeina ƕa taujiþ taihswo þeina (Mt 6:3)
left(hand) your what do.3sg righthand your
‘but you doing almsgiving, let your left hand not know
what your right hand is doing’
For the construction, cf. the Greek genitive absolutes éti autoũ laloũntos ‘him still
speaking’ and soũ dè poioũntos eleēmosúnēn ‘but you doing almsgiving’.
Not all genitive absolutes are rendered by a dative absolute. Some 60 times other
constructions are used, e.g. miþþanei is rodida þata du im (Mt 9:18) ‘while he spoke
that to them’ for Gk. taũta autoũ laloũntos autoĩs ‘him speaking these things to them’;
or miþ fraujin gawaurstwin (Mk 16:20S) ‘with the Lord (as) coworker’ for toũ kūríou
sunergoũntos ‘the Lord coworking’, etc. (Köhler 1864: 54; Metlen 1938: 636; Durante
1969: 151f.; Barasch 1976; Costello 1980: 92; Zatočil 1980: 25f.).
Since nominative case and agreement should not be licensed, nominative absolutes
are problematic (Beer 1912; Patrick Stiles, p.c.). Grimm (1837: 895) cited two, Lücke
(1876) three. The best (cf. Bernhardt 1885: 116; Metlen 1938: 632) is (83).
15 Löbe (1839: 47), Bernhardt (1885: 116), Wright (1954: 292), and others, have claimed that in (81)
þuk taujandan is governed by witi, which is incorrect (Streitberg 1920: 170; Metlen 1938: 643; Durante
1969: 166). Grimm (1837: 887f.) specifically states that an absolute is not regiert (‘governed’) unless at is
present (§6.7). This supposedly makes the structure not strictly absolute (Lücke 1876: 29, w. lit), unless at
is a temporal specifier (Grimm), adverb (Metlen 1938: 640), or focusing device (Dewey & Syed 2009).
A not yet fully productive local case assigner cannot be excluded (cf. Miller 2002). For more criticism and
general discussion, see Morgaleva (2008a: 74f.). Bernhardt and Wright also mention that two Vet. Lat.
MSS (codd. Vercellensis, Veronensis) have acc tē facientem ‘you doing’. Other MSS and the Vulgate have
the standard Latin ablative absolute tē faciente, and final -m was unstable already in early Latin. Needless
to say, none of this has any bearing on accusative absolutes in Gothic. It may be relevant, however, in terms
of language contact, that Late Latin had an accusative absolute (Biese 1928).
408 Verbal and sentential syntax
Into the main clause qaþ þiudans ‘the king said’ are embedded what appears to be a
nom abs waurþans dags gatils ‘the opportune day having come’ and an acc abs atgag-
gandein inn dauhtar ‘the daughter coming in’. Since the latter is progressive, acc can
be linked to duration. But what licenses nom in the former? Both correspond to a
Greek gen abs: genoménēs hēmérās eukaírou ‘an opportune day having come’,
eiselthoúsēs tẽs thugatrós . . . ‘the daughter having come in’. For the first a dative abso-
lute might have been expected because Gothic has a dative of time (§4.37; cf. Sturtevant
1933a, 1933c: 341f.; Metlen 1938: 632; Costello 1980: 93f.).
Waurþans dags gatils opens a long run-on sentence. The point of Mk 6:21–8 is that
the day finally came when it was convenient for Herodias to have John murdered. The
subject is delayed to the end of the following verse. Even then, the content is obscured
by rambling about Herod’s banquet, Herodias’ daughter dancing and pleasing Herod,
Herod promising to honor a request from her, her going to her mother to learn that it
is John’s head that she is to request, her returning to Herod, and the deed being accom-
plished. Waurþans dags gatils is probably an anacoluthon (pace Rückert 1866: 417f.). If
it were a nominative absolute (Lechner 1847: ii; Werth 1965: 92; Durante 1969: 167f.),
Gothic should have more of them. Ellipsis for *waurþans was ‘the day had come’
(Köhler 1864: 52f., w. lit) was rejected by Grimm (1837: 896) as unidiomatic for warþ
dags gatils (cf. Skladny 1873: 9f.; Gering 1874: 406; Lücke 1876: 26; Metlen 1938: 632).
Emendation of waurþans to warþ þan is also unlikely (Beer 1912: 170).
According to Barasch (1976) and Dewey & Syed (2009), the bare dative absolute is the
default for subordination. The accusative absolute interacts with the tense and (lexical)
aspect of the participle and is linked to durativity or iterativity.16 The nominative
absolute supposedly has main clause features, but genuine examples are not assured.
e.g. with a nominative participial construction (Lühr 2005: 352–8). If absolute struc-
tures were not native to Germanic, as has been claimed, it is unclear why Gothic does
not have the other allegedly calqued structures that occur in Greek and Latin, namely,
noun, adjective, and null-subject absolutes (Köhler 1864: 52), or the Greek gen abs
(§4.21; Behaghel 1878: 242). For others, the calque was allowed, as in Old Church
Slavic (Beer 1904), because the cases could express temporality and attendant circum-
stances (Sturtevant 1933c: 341f.; M. Krause 1994; Lühr 2005). An Indo-European
inheritance is possible (Keydana 1997; Meier-Brügger 2010: 379; Kotin 2012: 324–8),
even if most, if not all, absolutes are Greek-prompted (Beer 1904: 3f., w. lit; Metlen
1938: 643). Eda (1988: 56) lists 94 examples, Hens (1995) 98.
Winkler (1896: 119f.), Beer (1904: 6ff.), and Morgaleva (2008a, b) believe that the
dative absolute has its basis in conjunctive structures and appositionals like that in (84).
(84) qimandin þan in gardja du-at-iddj-edun imma
coming.dat.sg.m then in house to-by-came-3pl he.dat.sg.m
þai blindans (Mt 9:28)
D.nom.pl.m blind.nom.pl.m
‘(to him) coming then into the house, there came up to him those blind men’
9.19 Infinitives
One of the main functions of the infinitive in Gothic is to complement verbs of various
classes. Infinitival complements are particularly common with modals and control
verbs. With subject control verbs the subject of the infinitive and the matrix verb are
indexed. In object control, the infinitival subject is identical to the matrix object.17
Switch reference is expressed by a finite (‘that’) clause (§9.41).
17 Infinitive structures are oversimplified here. Theoreticians recognize exhaustive control (aspectual,
modal, implicative verbs), partial control (factive, desiderative, . . . ), and so on (Miller 2002: ch. 3, w. lit).
410 Verbal and sentential syntax
Finite clauses can also be substituted for periphrastic passive infinitives, as with
purposives (Berard 1993a: 130f.) and sokjan ‘seek’, galeikan ‘please’, and wairþs ‘worthy’
(Köhler 1867: 435; Harbert 1978: 114ff.; Suzuki 1987b: 9f.; Berard 1993a: 93, 221). But
there are exceptions, as (85) shows.
(85) ni sokei lausjan (1Cor 7:27A)
neg seek.2sg.impv free.inf
‘do not seek to be freed’
Among the adjectives with infinitival complements are biūhts ‘accustomed’, mahteigs
‘able’, manwus ‘ready’, and wairþs ‘worthy’ (more in Berard 1993a: 92):
(86) biūhts was sa kindins fraletan ainana . . . bandjan
wont.nom.sg.m was D governor release.inf one.acc.sg.m prisoner
‘the governor was accustomed to release one prisoner’ (Mt 27:15)
(87) a) ei mahteigs sijai jah gaþlaihan . . . (Tit 1:9A/B)
that able.nom.sg.m be.3sg.opt and exhort.inf
‘that he may be able both to exhort’
b) mahteigs auk ist guþ aftra in-trusgjan ins (Rom 11:23A)
able.nom.sg.m for is God again in-graft.inf them.acc.pl
‘for God is able to graft them in again’
Adjectives like ready are ambiguous between the psych and the material reading, as in
the chicken is ready to eat (psych: chicken = eater; material: chicken = eatee). Forms of
manwus occur 6x (2 dupl) in addition to (89), twice with an infinitive, and only the
psych reading is attested. The other example is manwus im qiman at izwis (2Cor
12:14A/B) ‘I am ready to come to you’. Note the absence of du and the null object of
fraslindan (not the same as the obligatory gap with material adjectives in English).
Azetizo ‘easier’ has both the impersonal construction ‘it is easier (for x) to do y’ and
the raising structure ‘y is easier to do’. For the latter cf. aþar ist azetizo qiþan (Lk 5:23;
cf. Mt 9:5, Mk 2:9) ‘which is easier to say?’. For the former, cf. azetizo ist himin jah
airþa hindarleiþan (Lk 16:17) ‘it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear’.
The next three sections illustrate infinitival complements to modal verbs, subject
control verbs, and object control verbs. Copious additional examples can be found in
Berard (1993a: 63–93).
9.20 Infinitives with modal verbs 411
Modals and modal verbs typically involve the possibility, probability, permissibility,
or necessity of an event. They also serve as evidentials for the speaker’s certainty about
the statement, e.g. this may / might / should be so. Modals involve exhaustive control
(Miller 2002, w. lit). For simplicity, I follow the traditional analysis: modals take an
entire predication as their semantic argument. Even the subject ‘I’ in (90a) ‘I am not
coming’ is irrelevant to magan per se, the sentential subject being the external argu-
ment of ‘come’.
Modal verbs in Gothic include magan* ‘be able’, skulan* ‘be obliged’, þaurban*
‘need’, and the like.
(90) magan* ‘be able’
a) ni mag qiman (Lk 14:20)
neg can.1sg come.inf
‘I cannot come’
b) ni maguþ guda skalkinon jah faihuþraihna (Lk 16:13)
neg can.2pl god.dat.sg serve.inf and wealth-accretion
‘you cannot serve God and the accumulation of wealth’
(91) skulan* ‘owe, ought, must’
a) swaswe skuljau rodjan (Col 4:4B)
as owe.1sg speak.inf
‘as I ought (owe it) to speak’
b) skal-uþ þan aipiskaupus ungafairinoþs wisan (Tit 1:7B)
must-and then bishop.nom.sg blameless.nom.sg.m be.inf
‘now then the overseer/bishop must be blameless’
[Gk. deĩ gàr tòn epískopon anégklēton eĩnai, Lat. oportet enim episcopum sine
crīmine esse, lit. ‘for it is necessary the bishop to be without reproach’]
(92) þaurban* ‘need’
a) land bauhta jah þarf galeiþan jah saiƕan þata (Lk 14:18)
land bought.1sg and need.1sg go.inf and see.inf D.acc.sg.n
‘I bought land and need to go and see it’
b) ni þaurbum meljan izwis (1Thess 4:9B)
neg need.1pl write.inf you.dat.pl
‘we do not need to write to you’
Example (92b) has an optative alternant: ni þaurbum ei izwis meljaima (1Thess 5:1B)
‘we have no need that we write to you’. This is exceptional in two ways. First, a finite
clause is unusual in the absence of switch reference. Secondly, the appropriate switch
412 Verbal and sentential syntax
reference is in fact present in most Greek and Latin versions as well as the English
translations with ‘you have no need that we write to you’.18
Additional modal verbs and discussion of their syntax can be found in §5.24. Of
course, not all preterite-presents are modal verbs.
With subject control the infinitival subject is controlled by (i.e. coreferential with) the
matrix subject or the subject of its superordinate clause, which may, of course, be
phonologically null. Subject control verbs include volition, hoping, loving, inception
and cessation (regardless of underlying structure), seeking, necessity, shaming, etc.
(93) Volition (when negated, the optative is required §9.42)
a) izwara ƕas raihtis wiljands kelikn timbrjan (Lk 14:28)
you.gen.pl who indeed will.PrP.nom.sg.m tower build.inf
‘who of you indeed, willing to build a tower’
b) so gawilja ist bauan miþ imma (1Cor 7:12A)
D.nom.sg.f willing.nom.sg.f is live.inf with he.dat.sg
‘she is willing to live with him’
(94) Hope
a) þanuh nu wenja sandjan (Phil 2:23B)
him now hope.1sg send.inf
‘him now I hope to send’
b) wen habam . . . in izwis mikilnan (2Cor 10:15B)
hope.acc.sg.f have.1pl in you.dat.pl get.magnified.inf
‘we have hope of becoming magnified in you’
(95) Desire
a) gairnjands þuk gasaiƕan (2Tim 1:4A)
yearn.PrP.nom.sg.m you.acc.sg see.inf
‘desiring to see you’
b) lustu habands andletnan (Phil 1:23B)
desire.acc.sg.m having.nom.sg.m depart.inf
‘having a desire to depart’
c) usbida auk anaþaima wisan silba ik (Rom 9:3A)
wish.1sg for anathema be.inf self.nom.sg.m I
‘for I desire—I myself—to be accursed’
18 This passage has many variants. The writer is not specified in Tertullian (nōn est necessitās scrībendī
vōbīs ‘there is no necessity of writing to you’) or several codices with nōn est necesse vōbīs scrībere ‘it is not
necessary to write to you’ (Ambrosiaster pass inf scrībī). The subject ‘we’ appears in several variants, e.g.
Augustine (epistle 199, to Hesychius [418/419]) nōn opus habēmus vōbīs scrībere ‘we do not have a need
to write to you’. And so on (Tischendorf 1872: 763; Findlay 1904: 104).
9.21–22 Subject and object control 413
(96) Love
frijond in gaqumþim jah waihstam plapjo
love.3pl in synagogue.dat.pl and corner.dat.pl street.gen.pl
standandans bidjan (Mt 6:5)19
standing.nom.pl.m pray.inf
‘they love to pray standing in the synagogues and the corners of the streets’
(97) Inception
a) duginnam aftra uns silbans anafilhan (2Cor 3:1A/B)
begin.1pl again we.acc self.acc.pl.m commend.inf
‘are we beginning to commend (i.e. brag about) ourselves again?’
b) jah dugunnun suns faurqiþan allai (Lk 14:18)
and begin.3pl.pret at.once excuse.inf all.nom.pl.m
‘and all began at once to decline’
(98) Seeking
sokidedun ina þai Iudaieis usqiman (Jn 7:1)
seek.3pl.pret he.acc D.nom.pl.m Jew.nom.pl kill.inf
‘the Jews sought to kill him’
(99) Promising
ga-haihaitun imma faihu giban (Mk 14:11)
prfx-promise.3pl.pret he.dat.sg money.acc.sg give.inf
‘they promised to give him money’
(100) Assertion
guþ andhaitand kunnan (Tit 1:16A)
god.acc.sg profess.3pl know.inf
‘they profess to know God’
(101) Denial
þu mik afaikis kunnan þrim sinþam (Jn 13:38)
you me deny.2sg know.inf three.dat.pl time.dat.pl
‘you will deny knowing me three times’
(102) Thinking
iþ jabai þugkeiþ ƕas ƕa wisan (Gal 6:3A/B)
but if think.3sg indf:nom.sg.m indf:acc.sg.n be.inf
‘but if anyone thinks (himself) to be something’
(103) Shaming
bidjan skama mik (Lk 16:3)
beg.inf shame.1sg me.acc.sg
‘I am ashamed to beg’
19 Compare Gk. philoũsin . . . proseúkhesthai ‘they love to pray’. Likewise, most Latin MSS have
amant . . . ōrāre ‘id.’ (VL 1972: 30).
414 Verbal and sentential syntax
(104) Necessity
land bauhta jah þarf galeiþan jah saiƕan þata (Lk 14:18)
land bought.1sg and need.1sg go.inf and see.inf D.acc.sg.n
‘I bought land and need to go and see it’
The use of a verb ‘need’ in (104) contrasts with the Greek expression: ékhō anágkēn
exeltheĩn kaì ideĩn autón ‘I have need to go out and see it’. Similarly, most Latin ver-
sions have necesse habeō ‘id.’ (VL 1976: 171).
With object control the infinitival subject is controlled by (i.e. coreferential with) the
direct or indirect object (§9.57) of the matrix (or superordinate) verb. Object control
verbs include asking, reminding, permission, prevention, coercion, etc. (see also
§§9.23, 9.28).
(105) Asking
bad ina gaggan in gard seinana (Lk 8:41)
ask.3sg.pret him go.inf in house poss.refl:acc.sg.m
‘hex asked himz to come into hisx house’
(106) Telling
ik qiþa izwis ni swaran allis (Mt 5:34)
I say.1sg you.dat.pl neg swear.inf at.all
‘I tell you not to swear at all’
(107) Reminding
gamaudja þuk anaqiujan anst gudis (2Tim 1:6A/B)
remind.1sg you.acc revivify.inf favor.acc god.gen
‘I remind you to stir up God’s gracious gift’
(108) Permission
a) uslaubei mis galeiþan (Lk 9:59)
allow.2sg.impv me.dat go.inf
‘permit me to go’
b) ni fralailot rodjan þos unhulþons (Mk 1:34)
neg let.3sg.pret speak.inf D.acc.pl.f demon.acc.pl.f
‘he did not allow the demons speak’
(109) Prevention
warjandans uns du þiudom rodjan (1Thess 2:16B)
prohibit.PrP.nom.pl.m us.dat to people.dat.pl speak.inf
‘prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles’
9.23 Infinitival purposives 415
(110) Ordering
anabaud ahmin þamma unhrainjin usgaggan
command.3sg.pret spirit.dat D.dat.sg.m unclean.dat.sg.m go.out.inf
‘he commanded the unclean spirit to come out’ (Lk 8:29)
(111) Coercion
baidiþs was bi – maitan (Gal 2:3A/B)
force.PPP.nom.sg.m was around-cut.inf
‘he was compelled to be circumcised’
In (111), with a passivized matrix verb, the thematic object surfaces as the subject,
which controls the infinitival subject.
Occasionally, as in (112), du ‘to’ is generalized from purposives to complement
infinitives (Berard 1993a: 296f.).
(112) unte silbans jūs at guda uslaisidai sijuþ
for self.nom.pl.m you.nom.pl from god taught.nom.pl.m be.2pl
du frijon izwis misso (1Thess 4:9B)
to love.inf you.acc.pl recip
‘for you yourselves are taught via God to love one another’
The thematic object (surface subject) of passive uslaisidai sijuþ controls the infinitival
subject.
Complements to verbs of motion often have an implied purpose, and the meaning of
movement can be lost in favor of a pragmatic inferential meaning of intent (Miller
2010: ii. 76ff., w. lit). Gothic examples abound with gaggan ‘go’ (6x), its compounds
(14x), qiman ‘come’ (30x), and other intransitive motion verbs, plus one example
with the hapax wlaiton* (Mk 5:32) ‘look around’ (Berard 1993a: 112ff.). Qiman ‘come’
occurs with purposive du ‘to’ only 1x: qam du nasjan unsis (Bl 1r.13) ‘came (in order)
to save us’.
The infinitive is preferred when (a) the final clause is not negated, (b) the matrix
predicate is a verb of motion, and (c) the subject of the infinitive is coreferential with
the matrix subject or object (Ehrenfellner 1998: 235).
The controller is the matrix subject in entries (113–16).
(113) us-iddja in fairguni bidjan (Lk 9:28)
out/up-went.3sg in mountain.acc pray.inf
‘he went up into the mountain to pray’
416 Verbal and sentential syntax
With the transitive motion verbs briggan ‘bring’ and gaweison* ‘visit’, the matrix
subject controls the infinitival subject (1x each); cf. (118).
(118) brāhtedun ina in Iairusalem, atsatjan faura fraujin (Lk 2:22)
brought.3pl him in Jerusalem present.inf before lord.dat
‘they brought him to Jerusalem to present (him) to the Lord’
With insandjan ‘send, dispatch’, there is one instance of subject control20 vs. nine
of object control, e.g. (119), plus two more of underlying object control in passives
(Berard 1993a: 115ff.).
(119) insandida ins merjan þiudangardja gudis (Lk 9:2)
sent.3sg them preach.inf kingdom god.gen
‘he sent them to preach the kingdom of God’
20 This is questionable. The example is aipistulans insandida Tobeias ogjan mik (Neh 6:19) ‘Tobiah sent
letters to intimidate me’. Berard assumes a subject control structure [Tobiahx sent lettersz [PROx to intimidate
me]], but since controllers need not be animate (Miller 2002: 59, w. lit) there is no reason the structure
cannot be object control: [Tobiahx sent lettersz [PROz to intimidate me]]. For a nonanimate controller,
note [the letterx served [PROx to intimidate me]]. PRO is a representation of unexpressed nonfinite
subjects. Theories without PRO still need a way to capture implicit subjects and control.
9.24 Purposives with du 417
of adjuncts (Berard 1993a: 117–48, 354). Du is the only P-word Gothic uses with the
infinitive (GE 324; Mossé 1956: 185). It is not a case assigner, but a complementizer
(e.g. Melazzo 2004). When verbs of motion rarely take du with an infinitive, it clarifies
the construction as purposive. More sparse is a purposive without du to a nonmotion
verb, e.g. gaumjais uswairpan (Lk 6:42) ‘you will see clearly to remove’.
In (120), the du infinitive is a purposive adjunct to a matrix activity, and the matrix
subject controls the infinitival subject. This construction prevails when the subject is
a participle (Berard 1993a: 129f.).
(120) ur-rann sa saiands du saian (Mk 4:3; cf. Lk 8:5 no sa)
out-ran.3sg D.nom.sg.m sowing.nom.sg to sow.inf
the sower ran out (in order) to sow’
In (121), the adjunct is as much to the noun as to the matrix event, and the matrix
subject controls the infinitival subject.
(121) ƕazuh saei saiƕiþ qinon du luston izos (Mt 5:28)
each who see.3sg woman.acc.sg to lust.inf her.gen.sg
‘each (man) who looks at a woman (with the intent) to lust after her’
In (120) and (121), the Greek text has an infinitive with declined article, often equivalent
to a gerundial (cf. Berard 1993a: 197): toũ speĩrai ‘of (for) sowing’, pròs tò epithūmẽsai
autēn ‘toward the lusting after her’.
So also in (122), the du infinitives translate the Greek articular infinitives eis tò
́
esthíein kaì pī nein ‘for (the) eating and drinking’. The gapping of du is parallel to the
gapping of tó ‘the’ in Greek.
(122) ibai auk gardins ni habaiþ du matjan jah drigkan (1Cor 11:22A)
Q for houses neg have.2pl to eat.inf and drink.inf
‘do you not have houses for eating and drinking?!’
Waldufni usually occurs with bare infinitives, as in ibai ni habam waldufni matjan jah
drigkan (1Cor 9:4A) ‘do we not have the right to eat and drink?’ (Berard 1993a: 327f.,
333; Melazzo 2004: 369ff.). Compare ni habos waldufni du ni waurkjan (1Cor 9:6A) ‘do
we two not have the right to not work (for a living)?’. The du- infinitive simultaneously
expresses actuality and potentiality, as in aiwa mag sa unsis leik giban du matjan (Jn
6:52) ‘how can this (man) give us his flesh to eat?’ (§9.57).
With material between a verb and a PrP, a du infinitive can substitute for the PrP.
Beside saei sat aihtronds (Jn 9:8) ‘who sat begging’, note sat faur wig du aihtron (Mk
10:46, Lk 18:35) ‘sat by the road to beg’. All three translate Gk. prosaitõn ‘begging’. This
is not obligatory; cf. standand . . . gairnjandona (Lk 8:20) ‘they stand . . . desiring’.
Especially when the infinitive is in subject position,21 it can project a DP with
þata probably in a Spec position (Berard 1993a: 166f., 199, 372f.; cf. Sturtevant
1947b: 409):
(125) þata du sitan af taihswon meinai . . . nist
D.nom.sg.n to sit.inf at right.dat.sg.f.wk my.dat.sg.f is.not
mein du giban (Mk 10:40)
mine.nom.sg.n to give.inf
‘sitting at my right . . . is not mine to grant’
Although this construction occurs only six times, it is especially common in the
Gospel of Mark; cf. þata du frijon ina ‘(this) loving him’ and þata du frijon ne undjan
swe sik silban ‘loving (one’s) neighbor as [one loves] himself ’, both in Mk 12:33.
Infinitival DPs are also possible in the predicate; cf. (126) without du.
(126) ƕa ist þata us dauþaim usstandan (Mk 9:10)
what is D.nom.sg.n from dead.dat.pl.m rise.inf
‘what is this rising from among the dead?’
This construction satisfies the criterion of old information (§3.5) and is a request for
a definition (Berard 1993a: 200).
21 As in other Indo-European languages, impersonal null subjects (more technically, null expletive
pro) have 3sg features (Miller 2010: ii. 241, w. lit). This is most evident in examples like Eng. it is clear and
the equivalent Latin adjectival predicate certum est ‘it is certain, decided’, in which -um is neuter. The same
is true of Gothic adjectives. With predicates like these, infinitives have been considered to be subjects
rather than complements (e.g. Bernhardt 1885: 106). Beyond that, Gothic has many clear examples of
infinitives in subject position (see Berard 1995).
9.26 Accusative and participle or adjective 419
Waila wisan and skuld was (§5.29) are both verb-final (§11.13) and render single
semantically equivalent Greek verbs euphranthẽnai ‘be well’, édei ‘was necessary’.
The parallelism between þatainei and þata with the infinitives in (128) could sug-
gest that ni þatainei is elliptical for *ni þatainei þata ‘not only the’ for Gk. ou mónon tò
eis autòn pisteúein [not only the in him to.believe]. Berard (1993a: 203f.) attributes
þata to the complexity of the second infinitive, but the structure precisely matches the
Greek tò hupèr autoũ páskhein [the for him to.suffer], possibly to be construed as
gerundials.
(128) izwis fra-giban ist … ni þatainei du imma galaubjan
to.you prfx-given is neg only in him believe.inf
ak jah þata faur ina winnan (Phil 1:29B)
but also D.nom.sg.n for him suffer.inf
‘not only believing in him but also suffering for him has been granted to you’
The Greek text has eiseltheĩn ‘to go in, enter’ with a preverb not translated in Gothic.
The parallel passage (Lk 18:25) has the same in the Byzantine main text, while the
Alexandrian version has a preverb-preposition copy construction dià . . . dieltheĩn ‘to
go through . . . through’, which is mirrored in Gothic: raþizo allis ist ulbandau þairh
þairko neþlos þairhleiþan* <þairþleiþan> (Goetting 2007: 333f.; Casaretto 2014: 46).
In (130), the accusative plus participle (A+P) is an object clause that receives a the-
matic role from bigat: [bigat [SC unhulþon usgaggana]]. This does not entail that the
demon was found. In (131), lamb is the thematic object of bigat, and the participle
is indexed with it: [bigat lambx [þatax fralusanox]]. This entails that the sheep was in
fact found.
Entry (132) appears ambiguous because the messengers saw the servant who had
been sick but did not ‘find’ him in the strict sense.
(132) bigetun þana siukan skalk
find.3pl.pret D.acc.sg.m sick.acc.sg.m.wk servant.acc.sg
hailana (Lk 7:10)
whole.acc.sg.m
‘they found the sick servant in good health’
The idea is that the messengers made the discovery that the (previously) sick servant
had been healed. This example, then, is a genuine SC object clause.
Object clause A+P is especially favored by verbs of sensation, perception, and qiþan
‘say; assert, call’. Berard (1993a: 61f.) cites 32 examples (12 with qiþan), but includes
hausideduþ ina siukan ‘you heard that he was sick’, in which siukan is an infinitive
(§9.29), not an adjective. Examples follow.
(133) þuk seƕum siukana (Mt 25:39C)
you.acc.sg see.1pl.pret sick.acc.sg.m
‘we saw that you were ill’
This is direct perception and the structure is [you see sonx [PROx to ascend]]. It differs
from AI in that with AI the subject of the embedded clause is not an argument of see.
The structure is [you see sonx [tx to ascend]], the meaning being ‘you see that the son
is ascending’. The former entails that you witnessed the son and the event. The latter
is pseudo-perception because it does not entail that you actually saw the son.
422 Verbal and sentential syntax
In the sense of actual perception, the construction is frequent; cf. also hausideduþ
praufetu insakan (Bl 2r.17) ‘you heard the prophet declare’.
Example (141) is technically ambiguous.
(141) haihait galeiþan siponjans hindar marein (Mt 8:18)
command.3sg.pret go.inf disciples.acc.pl beyond lake.acc.sg
‘he commanded the disciples to go across the lake’
If Jesus commanded the disciples directly, it is an object control structure. If, on the
other hand, the meaning is that he gave a command that the disciples cross the lake,
there being no entailment that he even saw the disciples, then the structure is AI.
Contextually, the former is more likely and consistent with cod. Claromontanus (h/12)
(VL 1972: 44) praecēpit discipulīs suīs, ut īrent ‘he gave an instruction to his disciples
that they go’ (cf. Marold 1882: 50f.).
By contrast, anabiudan* ‘command’ takes dative complements and in control struc-
tures dative plus infinitive (142), but AI when control is not involved (143).
(142) anabaud ahmin þamma unhrainjin
command.3sg.pret spirit.dat D.dat.sg.m unclean.dat.sg.m
usgaggan (Lk 8:29)
go.out.inf
‘he commanded the unclean spirit to come out’
Entry (142) entails a direct command to the spirit. (143) is an indirect command that
a husband not leave his wife. This is a partial innovation but still motivated by the
Gothic case system. In sharp contrast to Greek and Latin, where AI has nothing to do
with case assignment by the superordinate verb, in Gothic, as through the history of
English, AI is contingent on case from the higher verb. Ana-biudan* ‘command’ takes
dative of the person and accusative of the thing, as in a izwis anabauþ Moses (Mk 10:3)
‘what did Moses command you?’ (§4.52). While aba is a person, in AI the lower subject
raises to an object position in the higher clause (details in Miller 2002, w. lit).
Gothic often avoids the accusative and infinitive (AI) construction that is so preva-
lent in Greek and Latin. One strategy is substitution of a finite clause, as in (144).
(144) a) þatei . . . skulda wisan (Lk 2:49)
comp owe.1sg.pret be.inf
‘that I was obliged to be’
[Gk. hóti . . . deĩ eĩnaí me ‘that it is necessary (for) me to be’]
b) duþe ei was (Lk 2:4)
for.this comp was
‘for this (reason) that he was’
[Gk. dià tò eĩnai autón [because.of the to.be him] ‘because he was’]
9.27 Accusative and infinitive 423
In (144a) a personal verb is substituted for an impersonal one (Greiner 1992: 99). The
finite clause is especially favored for Greek AI not introduced by a verb, as in (144b)
(Greiner 1992: 100; cf. Apelt 1874: 291).
Verbs like wiljan ‘will, be willing, wish, want’ can be subject control (§9.18) or take AI.
This is not object control because in (145) and (146) no one is actually wanted.
(145) þai-ei ni wildedun mik þiudanon ufar sis (Lk 19:27)
nom.pl.m-rel neg wanted.3pl me rule.inf over refl
‘they who did not want me to rule over them’
(146) wiljau allans mans wisan swe mik silban (1Cor 7:7A)
want.1sg all.acc.pl.m men be.inf as me self.acc.sg.m
‘I want all men to be like myself ’
In both of these, it is the assertion that is wanted, not the individual(s). To paraphrase,
‘it’s my rule over them that they did not want’, ‘I want that all men be like me’.
Normally wiljan is a subject control verb when the matrix and infinitival subjects
are coreferential. In (147), wiljan takes AI with coreferential subjects, although neither
the Greek nor the Latin versions have AI (cf. Berard 1993a: 309f.).
(147) wilda . . . (16) . . . qiman at izwis, jah fram izwis gasandjan
want.1sg.pret come.inf to you and by you send.inf
mik in Iudaia (2Cor 1:15f.A/B)
me.acc in Judea
‘I wanted to come to you, and myself to be sent by you to Judea’
[Gk. eboulómēn . . . eltheĩn pròs hūmãs, kaì huph’ hūmõn propemphthẽnai
‘I wanted to come to you, and to be sent forth by you’]
22 The shift may relate to the hypothesis that a single modal verb cannot have coordinated active and
passive infinitives. But (a) wiljan is not a modal verb, and (b) although a conjoined passive can appear in
the optative instead of the infinitive (§5.29), that generalization is not exceptionless, as (i) shows.
(i) skal sunus mans manag winnan jah uskusans … wairþan
must son.nom man.gen much.acc.sg.n suffer.inf and rejected.nom.sg.m become.inf
‘the son of man must suffer much and get rejected by the elders’ (§5.29). (Lk 9:22)
424 Verbal and sentential syntax
9.29 Examples of AI
With most matrix verbs, AI is either a small clause expanded by wisan ‘to be’ or con-
tains an intransitive verb, rarely transitive. Complete data and discussion can be found
in Köhler (1867), Apelt (1874), Van der Meer (1901: 55–9; 1914), and Harbert (1978:
176–209).
(148) (ga)domjan ‘deem, judge’
a) gadomidedun ina skulan wisan (Mk 14:64)
deem.3pl.pret he.acc debtor.acc.sg be.inf
‘they deemed him to be a guilty person’
b) all domja sleiþa wisan (Phil 3:8A/B)
all.acc.sg.n deem.1sg loss.acc.sg.f be.inf
‘I deem everything to be a loss’
c) domja smarnos wisan allata (Phil 3:8A/B)
deem.1sg dung.acc.pl.f be.inf all.acc.sg.n
‘I deem everything to be detritus’
(149) hausjan ‘hear’
hausideduþ ina siukan (Phil 2:26A/B)
hear.2pl.pret he.acc.sg sick.inf
‘you heard that he was ill’
(150) hugjan* ‘be minded, suppose’
hugjandona in gasinþjam ina wisan (Lk 2:44)
supposing.nom.pl.n [§4.4] in travel.party.dat.pl he.acc be.inf
‘supposing him to be in the travel party’ (Seebold 1974: in der Reisegesellschaft)
(151) galaubjan ‘believe’ (otherwise þatei clause or just infinitive: matjan Rom 14:2A)
galaubjand auk allai Iohannen praufetu wisan (Lk 20:6)
believe.3pl for all.nom.pl.m John.acc prophet.acc be.inf
‘for they all believe John to be a prophet’
(152) 1.munan ‘think’
a) man nu þata goþ wisan (1Cor 7:26A)
think.1sg now D.acc.sg.n good.acc.sg.n be.inf
‘I think therefore that this is good’
b) man auk ni waihtai mik minnizo
think.1sg for neg thing.dat I.acc less.acc.sg.n
gataujan þaim (2Cor 11:5B)
do.inf they.dat
‘I consider myself to do nothing (lit. by nothing) less than those’ (§4.35)
[Apelt (1874: 286) and Marold (1882: 56f.) argue for Latin influence.]
9.29 Examples of accusative and infinitive 425
An older and unequivocally native Germanic variety of AI (e.g. Apelt 1874: 296f.;
Harbert 2007: 261f.) is found with verbs of causation, such as (ga)taujan ‘make, cause’:
(158) jah baudans gataujiþ gahausjan jah unrodjandans rodjan (Mk 7:37)
‘even the deaf he causes to hear and the unspeaking to speak’
A causative verb plus infinitive in five passages replaces a single Greek verb, e.g.
wahsjan gataujai akrana (2Cor 9:10B) ‘he shall make the crops grow’ for Gk. auxē saí
́
tà genē mata ‘he is to grow the crops’, gatawidedun anakumbjan allans (Lk 9:15) ‘they
had everyone recline’ for anéklīnan hápantas ‘they reclined everyone’ (Cebulla 1910:
23 At Lk 5:10 cod. Brix. alone has hominum . . . captōrēs ‘catchers of men’ for piscātōrēs hominum ‘fishers
of men’ (Odefey 1908: 101; VL 1976: 50). More to the point, Gk. halieús ‘seaman, fisherman’ has a religious
sense here, which Goth. fiskja* ‘fisherman’ would not have (Sturtevant 1936: 276).
426 Verbal and sentential syntax
13ff.; Berard 1993a: 313f.), but note codd. Aureus, Brix., Vulg. (VL 1976: 103) discumbere
fēcērunt omnēs ‘they made everyone recline’ (Marold 1882: 54).
Like (ga)taujan is waurkjan ‘work; cause’, e.g. waurkeiþ þans mans anakumbjan
́ . . . anapeseĩn ‘cause . . .
(Jn 6:10, Sk 7.2.1f.) ‘have the people sit down (to eat)’ (Gk. poiē sate
to recline (at the table’);24 gataujan: þo filus|na anakumbjan | gatawidedun (Sk 7.2.6ff.)
‘they had the multitude sit down’, equivalent to the causative verb anakumbidedun
wairos (Jn 6:10) ‘they had the men recline’. For other contrasts of this passage in John
and Skeireins, see Marold (1892: 78f.) and Falluomini (2016a: 291).
The idea that AI in Gothic was due in part to Greek imitation and in part to Latin
influence on the scribes (Apelt 1874) is dismissed by Berard (1993a: 226f.) on the
grounds that there is no consistency in the correspondence of AI between the Gothic
and older sources. The most crucial contrast involves the contexts in which AI is used
with qiþan ‘say’. The Gothic examples follow.
(160) a) ƕana mik qiþiþ wisan (Mk 8:29, Lk 9:20)
who.acc.sg.m I.acc.sg say.2pl be.inf
‘whom do you say me to be?’
b) ƕana mik qiþand mans wisan (Mk 8:29)
who.acc.sg.m I.acc.sg say.3pl man.nom.pl be.inf
‘whom do people say me to be?’
c) ƕana mik qiþand wisan þos manageins (Lk 9:18)
who.acc.sg.m I.acc.sg say.3pl be.inf D crowd.nom.pl
‘whom do the crowds say me to be?’
24 An old problem (e.g. Köhler 1867: 450f.; Marold 1882: 53f.; Harbert 1978: 173f., w. lit) is the dat + inf
gawaurkeiþ im anakumbjan kubituns, ana arjanoh fimf tiguns (Lk 9:14) ‘have them sit down (in) dining
groups, fifty (people) in each’. Kubituns may be a cognate accusative (Harbert 1978: 174), as in Gk. kataklī ń ate
́
autoùs klisíās anà pentēkonta ‘have them (acc) recline (in) groups (of diners), fifty each’, but the syntax is
problematic (§4.36, end). Goth. kubitus* is from Lat. cubitus ‘reclining (at the table)’ (GED 221, NWG 202).
Most Latin versions have facite illōs discumbere per convīvia quīnquāgēnōs ‘make them recline by dining
groups, fifty each’. If kubituns means ‘recliners’, it could parallel cod. Bezae (VL 1976: 103) reclīnāte eōs
discumbitiōnēs ‘have those recliners sit down’. As subject of anakumbjan, the order would be the same as in
gatawidedun anakumbjan allans ‘they had everyone recline’ (main text above), but what is dat im ‘them’?
Sturtevant (1931: 66) suggests crossing with a parallel passage anabauþ þizai managein anakumbjan (Mk 8:6)
‘he commanded the crowd to recline’, where dat is correct (§9.27). But even if gawaurkeiþ in Lk 9:14 is treated
as a control verb, the acc case of the hapax kubituns is problematic. There is no evidence that it is indeclinable.
9.31 Diachrony and synchrony of AI 427
To conclude this section, precisely as in Old and Middle English (Miller 2002:
157–86), ‘say’ occurs with AI only when licensed by certain kinds of wh- movement.25
Neither Gothic nor Old English has examples like ?*they say me to be X, despite countless
Greek and Latin prompts.26
It has been argued that AI in Gothic is contingent on the higher verb having an
accusative feature and that, consequently, AI is fully grammatical and not just lifted
over from Greek or Latin. This is supported by three facts: (i) Greek and Latin have
types of AI that are not calqued in Gothic,27 (ii) Gothic avoids AI when it cannot be
licensed by a higher active verb, and (iii) exceptions to the generalization that Gothic
AI is licensed by the higher verb are very rare calques of questionable grammatical-
ity. These facts are reviewed in this section, which closes with a brief note on the
origin of AI.
Avoidance of AI in Gothic is supported by (151) above: galaubjand auk allai
Iohannen praufetu wisan (Lk 20:6) ‘for they all believe John to be a prophet’. This sug-
gests that the SC expansion with wisan ‘to be’ was grammatical, but not as comple-
ment to a passive predicate, as in Gk. pepeisménos gár estin ‘for (the populace) was
convinced’, or to most of the predicates in the Latin versions, e.g. certī sunt ‘are certain’,
persuāsum est illīs ‘they were persuaded’ (VL 1976: 222). The only way Gothic could
keep the literal rendering ‘John to be a prophet’ was by activizing the matrix verb.
Another strategy to avoid AI is illustrated in (163).
(163) batizo ist ainana mannan fraqistjan (Jn 18:14)
better is one.acc man.acc destroy.inf
‘it is better to destroy one person’
[Gk. sumphérei héna ánthrōpon apolésthai ‘it is expedient one person to perish’]
By reversing the valence of the embedded verb from ‘perish’ to ‘destroy’, Greek AI is
avoided (Apelt 1874: 290f.; Van der Meer 1914: 206; Peeters 1982). Scribal error for
fraqistnan* (Friedrichsen 1926: 128) is baseless: fraqistjan can take dat or acc objects
(§4.45). Curme (1911: 363) and Sturtevant (1933c: 344ff.) construe fraqistjan passively.
Elsewhere it is active, and the translator of John avoids AI.
In (164), the substitution of dat imma for Gk. acc autón ‘him’ creates a completely
different structure in which both imma and the infinitive are dependent on warþ, in
contrast to the Greek in which autón is subject of the infinitive (Peeters 1980: 205f.).
(164) warþ þairh-gaggan imma (Mk 2:23)
got.to.be through-go.inf he.dat
‘it came to pass for him to go through’
[Gk. egéneto para-poreúesthai autón ‘it came to pass that he walked…’
got.to.be by-walk.inf he.acc]
Köhler (1867: 422f.) explains this as an exclamatory expression, as in Greek and Latin.
More likely, the Gothic expression is elliptical for something like ‘what concerns me
and the judging of outsiders’ (Berard 1993a: 199, 208–11).
Exceptions to the generalization that Gothic AI normally contains wisan and is
triggered only by verbs with an accusative feature are rare and unsurprisingly most
flagrant in the linguistically adventuresome Luke (cf. §§1.7f.). See (166) (Apelt 1874:
290ff.; Harbert 1978: 288f.).28
28 A difficult passage is ni wulwa rahnida wisan sik galeiko guda (Phil 2:6B) ‘thought it not robbery to
be similar to God’. Rahnjan is often construed with a small clause (§4.53) or accusative and infinitive
(§9.29). With wisan, sik must be the subject (‘did not consider himself to be similarly to God’), but how
does wulwa fit in?: ‘thought it not robbery himself to be similarly to God’ is difficult to motivate. In Latin
this structure is normal: nōn rapīnam arbitrātus est esse sē aequālem deō ‘he did not consider it plunder(ing)
that he be [lit. himself to be] equal to God’. Greek has no pronoun: oukh harpagmòn hāgē sato ́ tò eĩnai
ĩsa theõi ‘he did not consider it a prize (object of theft) being equal (lit. equally) to God’. If the Gothic is
like the Latin (except that Latin uses a predicate adjective aequālem ‘equal’), it should be ungrammatical.
9.32 Finite subordination 429
Nor is AI with gadob ‘it was proper’ and (ga)leikan ‘please’ normal, but since ga-daban
can have an acc feature (§5.10) and (ga)leikan can be causative (§4.51), they are not as
deviant as (166a, b), which Curme (1911: 362f.) and Sturtevant (1917) declare good. As
to rare result clauses with AI (§9.47), labeled Grecisms by Van der Meer (1914: 208),
nothing precludes swaswe (etc.) having a case feature in some translator’s grammar.
To conclude this section, AI originated in Gothic, as in Old English, by a small
clause expansion with ‘be’. All of the early Indo-European languages attest SCs of the
structure [saw/heard/knew [him sick/dead/ etc.]] (Miller 2002: ch. 7; 2010: i. 18f., 26).
Outside of Anatolian, SCs admitted expansion by ‘be’ or some other stative verb in
most of the early languages. Greek and Latin generalized this construction beyond its
original domain in which the accusative subject of the dependent clause was licensed
by the matrix predicate. Gothic and English, with rare exceptions, kept the original
distribution. With Gothic reflective verbs (believe, hear, know, etc.), the infinitive is
either wisan ‘be’ or a stative verb. This is not accidental. Indeed, one source of AI, as
in Old English, was by SC expansion, viz. [you see [SC him good]] → [you see [him
(to be) good]]. AI is avoided as complement to passive verbs, adjectives, or anything
else that is not associated with structural object case.
29 Although Lechner (1847: xv) labels AI unequivocal here, the tradition found AI with warþ so bizarre
that alternatives were sought. Apelt (1874: 287) proposed ana ‘(up)on’ before allans to align it with Gk.
egéneto thámbos epì pántas ‘astonishment came upon everyone’; cf. Lat. factus est pavor in omnibus ~ in/
super omnēs ‘trembling was made in/upon everyone’. The earlier tradition had already suggested that
afslauþnan was nominal here. Strunk (1893) adds that the eight a letters in the line could facilitate a scribal
error, and proposes jah warþ afslauþn ana allans, like the Greek, but with an otherwise unattested noun
*afslauþn, difficult to motivate because neuter -n- stems are residual (Schmidt-Wartenberg 1893). Van der
Meer (2014: 203ff.) emends allans to dat allaim.
430 Verbal and sentential syntax
Like Gk. hóti ‘because; that’, Goth. þatei can introduce direct speech (Lindberg
2010: 260), as in (167), or indirect, as in (169).
(169) unte qaþ þatei jabai wastjom is atteka ganisa
because said comp if garment.dat.pl his touch.1sg recover.1sg
‘for she said that if I touch his garments, I’ll be healed’ (Mk 5:28)
The main Gothic complementizers are ei and þatei ‘that’. Þatei is from the pro-
noun þata ‘that’ plus complementizer ei. The most generic complementizer in Gothic
was ei (Klinghardt 1877), except that þatei but not ei can occur in subject clauses
(Longobardi 1979). Both types of subordinate clauses appear in (170). Finite clauses
preferentially occur when the matrix and embedded subjects differ, infinitives under
coreferentiality.
(170) Ni hugjaiþ ei qemjau gatairan witoþ aiþþau
neg think.2pl.opt comp came.1sg.opt abolish.inf law or
praufetuns; ni qam gatairan ak usfulljan. |
prophet.acc.pl neg came.1sg abolish.inf but fulfill.inf
Amen auk qiþa izwis: und þatei usleiþiþ himins
truly for say.1sg you.dat.pl to comp disappear.3sg heaven
jah airþa, jota ains30 aiþþau ains striks ni usleiþiþ
and earth, iota one or one stroke neg disappear.3sg
af witoda, unte allata wairþiþ (Mt 5:17f.)
from law.dat.sg until all.nom.sg.n happen.3sg
‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to
abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth disappear,
not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will disappear from the law until
everything comes to pass.’
Another important detail is that both þatei and ei translate as ‘that’. Since there are
other complementizers as well, these require discussion.
30 The masculine gender of ains shows that jota had to be masculine, which suggests that Gothic, like
the rest of Germanic, had the singular *stafs (m -a-) ‘letter’ (Ammann 1948); cf. dat pl stabim (Gal 4:3,
9A, Col 2:20B) ‘elements, rudiments’ (Krogmann 1930; Laird 1940: 134f.).
9.33 Ei as a residual coordinating conjunction 431
The Gothic is like Vulg. vade et annunciā ‘go and announce’. The Vet. Lat. MSS are
mixed, some with et ‘and’, some with adjacent imperatives, one with participle vadēns
‘going’, and different verb choices (VL 1976: 115).
Another option is for Gothic to link the imperatives by means of the conjunction -uh:
(174) a) Gaggiþ qiþid-uh (Mk 16:7)
‘go and tell’
[Gk. hupágete eípate ‘go tell’, Lat. īte dīcite ‘id.’]
b) hindarleiþ an-uh-kumbei (Lk 17:7)
‘come over and recline (to eat)’
[Gk. parelthōn anápese ‘coming near, recline’,
Lat. trānsī recumbe ‘come over, recline’]
432 Verbal and sentential syntax
Several Latin versions insert et ‘and’ in both passages (VL 1970: 158, 193). Since Goth.
-uh conjoins only clauses (§11.14), Eythórsson (1995: 84–92) argues that the second
conjunct has a null subject (cf. Ferraresi 2005: 156, 159f.).
Given Gothic’s four ways of avoiding adjacent imperatives, two being an overt
conjunction like one of the options in most other languages, it is possible that ei
in (171) (sai iþ ei atsai iþ etc.) is a calcified conjunction. Russian da is an archaic
conjunction (for nouns, adjectives, verbs), but can place focus on a second constitu-
ent, for instance, in traditional folklore tales, skaži da pokaži ‘tell da show’ (Artūras
Ratkus, p.c.). This fits the Gothic examples: sai iþ ei atsai iþ ‘watch out and
(especially) beware’, let, ei sai am ‘(not only) let (be), but (more importantly) let’s see’.
Moreover, Russian can also use neutral i ‘and’ here: skaži i pokaži ‘tell and show’.
Significantly, Slavic (OCS, Russian, etc.) i ‘and’ is cognate with Goth. ei < *h2í h2i (LIPP
2.339, 347).
Finally, for ei as a residual conjunction, note the alternation in (175).
(175) a) leitil ei ni saiƕiþ mik (Jn 16:17)
‘a little (while) and you will not be seeing me’
b) leitil jah ni saiƕiþ mik ‘id.’ (Jn 16:19)
c) leitil jah gasaiƕiþ mik (Jn 16:16, 17, 19)
‘a little (while) and you will catch sight of me’
In (175a), Benveniste (1951b: 54f.) and Rousseau (2012: 225f.) take ei as a general-
ized subordinator like Fr. que ‘that’. Rousseau ignores the imperative contexts
(171, 173, 174). Benveniste (p. 55) takes (171b) as ‘let that we see’, which should be
*let ei sai aima. The only argument against ei as a conjunction by Longobardi
(1980) is lack of generality, but ei has the same functions as Slavic da and MnGk.
kaí (Musić 1929).
An example with adversative value (also like Russ. da) is maguts-u driggkan
stikl . . . ei daupjaindau (Mk 10:38) ‘can you two drink the cup . . . or be baptized?’
(§9.49). While some Greek versions have kaí ‘and’ and some ē ́ ‘or’, the Vetus Latina
agree on aut ‘or’ (VL 1970: 97).
1886: 255; Diekhoff 1912), e.g. faurþizei sa fair us wesi (Jn 17:5) ‘before the world
was/existed’.31
Gothic has a set of relativized personal pronouns: ik-ei (1Cor 15:9A, 2Cor 10:1B,
1Tim 1:13B) ‘I who’ (*mik-ei ‘me whom’, *miz-ei ‘to me to whom’), þuei (Rom 14:4A;
Bl 1v.8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 21) ‘you who’ (acc þuk-ei Mk 1:11 [margin gloss], dat þuz-ei
Mk 1:11, Lk 3:22), jūz-ei (6x, 3 dupl) ‘you (pl) who’, dat izwiz-ei. The last occurs
in (154).
(176) ƕas izwis afhugida … izwiz–ei faura
who you.acc.pl bewitch.3sg.pret you.dat.pl–rel before
augam Iesus Xristus faurameliþs was (Gal 3:1A)
eye.dat.pl Jesus Christ displayed.nom.sg.m was
‘who bewitched you . . . before whose eyes Jesus Christ was displayed?’
Ik-ei ‘I who’ is not the same as (ik) im saei ‘I am the one who’ (Jn 8:18, 1Cor 15:10A),
although both take first person agreement. That the clauses begin with prn-ei and not
bare ei is clear from strings like jūs jūz-ei (Eph 2:13A/B) ‘you you-who’, izwis jūzei
(Eph 2:17A/B) ‘(to) you you-who’. Also, the lack of devoicing in jūz-ei reflects absence
of (at least) a clause boundary, which would have licensed devoicing (Harbert 2018).
Harbert also emphasizes the typological rarity (if not total isolation) of relativized
personal pronouns in crosslinguistic perspective, citing Hendery (2012: 57, 230).
Third person masculine and feminine relativizers also exist. There is no neuter *it-ei.
Masculine ize(i) [he-that] (= is ‘he’ + complementizer ei) is a calcified subject relative
complementizer that lacks number (Afros 2010; Harbert 2012, 2018). For singular refer-
ence cf. izei (14x, 3 dupl) ~ ize (Mt 5:32, 1Cor 15:27A, 2Cor 5:21, 8:16A, 1Tim 1:16B; Eph
1:14, 4:15A; Gal 1:1B), plural izei (3x) ~ ize (5x). The rampant spelling variation (-ei ~ -e) is
attributed by Klinghardt (1877: 151) to phonological reduction, i.e. loss of composi-
tionality (Harbert 1992: 131; 2018).
For an example in the singular, note (177).
(177) ahman sunjos izei fram attin urrinniþ (Jn 15:26)
‘the spirit of truth which proceeds from the father’
Probably because of the frequent sa-ei ‘he that, who’, izei occurs only one time after sa:
(178) sa izei uslauk augona þamma blindin (Jn 11:37)
‘this (man) who opened the eyes of the blind man’
31 For discussion of Gothic relative clauses and complementizers, see Eckardt (1875), Longobardi
(1978), Ferraresi (1991: 30–5; 2005), Roberts & Roussou (2003: 118f.), Miller (1975; 2010: ii. 235ff.), Afros
(2006, 2010), Harbert (1992, 2012, 2018). For the relativized pronouns and other words, see Musić (1929:
244f.), Benveniste (1951b). In all examples involving relative pronouns, rel is shorthand for relativizing
complementizer, distinguished from other complementizers only heuristically because the same examples
can contain other complementizers.
434 Verbal and sentential syntax
Instrumental þeei ‘by/for the (reason) that’ exists only as a complementizer after ni or
nih ‘not for the reason that, not because; not that’ (+ opt) (Sturtevant 1947b: 412). It
serves to deny some putative motive (Klinghardt 1877: 289f.):
(179) a) ni þeei ina þize þarbane kara wesi (Jn 12:6)
‘(he said this) not because he cared for the poor’
b) nih þeei taujau wiljan meinana (Jn 6:38)
‘not that I may do my will’
c) ni þeei saurgaiþ (2Cor 2:4A/B)
‘not that you may be grieved’
Ni þatei (15x, 4 dupl) takes the optative when indirect discourse is implied
(Rousseau 2016: 526); cf. (180).
(180) ni þatei bi þarbai qiþau (Phil 4:11B)
neg comp by need speak.1sg.opt
‘not that I’m speaking by (personal) need’
32 Syntactically, Harbert (2018) argues, izei and sei are just realizations of the Fin(ite) head position
when a subject moves into its Spec. This occurs only when Force is not projected, Force being unnecessary
for subject relative clauses, but SpecForce is the landing site for nonsubject relative operators.
9.35 Relative adverbials and temporal conjunctions 435
The relative adverb þarei (35x, 2 dupl) ‘where’ can substitute for a more precise
relative word in an oblique case or PP, as in (181).
(181) a) neƕa þamma stada þarei matidedun hlaif (Jn 6:23)
‘near that place where (i.e. at which) they ate the bread’
b) in gudhūsa þarei sinteino Iudaieis gaqimand (Jn 18:20)
‘in the temple where the Jews habitually congregate’
c) galaiþ inn þarei was þata barn ligando (Mk 5:40)
‘went in where the child was lying’
Þarei occurs 4x (1 dupl) correlative to adverbial þaruh ‘where . . . there’; cf. (182) and
Klein (1994: 256).
(182) þarei auk ist huzd izwar, þaruh ist jah hairto izwar (Mt 6:21)
‘for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also’
The relative conjunction þanei (Mt 25:45, 40C, Jn 9:4) ‘when’ is largely vacuous
because þan can be used the same way. For þanei, see (184).
(184) qimiþ nahts, þanei ni manna mag waurkjan (Jn 9:4)
‘night is coming, when (i.e. during which) no one can work’
That þei is not contamination (Lühr 2000b: 174f.), but rather well motivated, is
suggested by parallel passages: und þatei miþ im ist brūþfaþs (Mk 2:19) ‘as long as
the bridegroom is with them’, unte sa brūþfads miþ im ist (Lk 5:34) ‘id.’ (see unte
in App.).
In (187), a nonspecific manner is referenced, and in (188) a nonspecific place.
(187) swe ik frijoda izwis, þei jah jūs frijoþ izwis
as I loved you comp and you love.2pl.opt you
misso (Jn 13:34)
recip
‘as I have loved you, thus you also are to love one another’
Pennington (2010: 330f.) admits that as a result clause (188) is unusual in having the
verb in the optative, and suggests it might be purposive. For either one, þei is not
expected. On p. 405, Pennington suggests that the Gothic version is framed as hypo-
thetical: “where could he possibly go that the ‘Jews’ would not find him.” While this is
plausible, it does not account for þei, which fits the examples in this section.
In core relative structures, the case of the relative pronoun is determined by the
syntax of its own clause, unless the relative is object of a preposition (technically a
free relative §9.38), which requires case realization in Gothic (cf. Douse 1886: 236).
By far the most frequent relative formation is sa-ei ‘he that/who’ (189), acc sg m þan-ei
(190), etc.
(189) ƕazuh nu sa-ei hauseiþ waurda
everyone.nom.sg.m now nom.sg.m-rel hear.3sg word.acc.pl.n
meina jah taujiþ þo galeiko ina waira
mine.acc.pl.n and do.3sg them liken.1sg him man.dat.sg
frodamma sa-ei gatimrida razn
wise.dat.sg.m nom.sg.m-rel build.3sg.pret house.acc.sg.n
9.36 Core relatives 437
(193) Stikls þiuþiqissais þanei gaweiham, niu gamaindūþs bloþis fraujins ist?
‘the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the communion of the Lord’s blood?’
Hlaifs þanei brikam, niu gamaindūþs leikis fraujins ist? (1Cor 10:16A)
‘the bread that we break, is it not the communion of the Lord’s body?’
In (195), the relative construct is resolved into a D-word and the complementizer ei.
(195) sijais þahands… und þana dag ei wairþai
be.2sg.opt silent until D.acc day comp happen.3sg.opt
þata (Lk 1:20)
D.nom.sg.n
‘be silent until the day when this comes to pass’
This type is limited to nonsubject positions in manner and time expressions; cf.
þamma daga ei sunus mans andhuljada (Lk 17:30) ‘on the day the son of man is
revealed’.
In subject position, an overt relative pronoun (D + complementizer) must be pre-
sent (Lühr 2000b: 167–70; Harbert 2018), as in (196).
(196) saƕazuh nu sa-ei andhaitiþ mis (Mt 10:32)
anyone.nom.sg.m now nom.sg.m-rel acknowledge.3sg I.dat
‘whoever now acknowledges me’
438 Verbal and sentential syntax
The only exception to this generalization is þis azuh ei qiþai (Mk 11:23) ‘whosoever
may say’ (Eckardt 1875: 18), which may be corrupted (Harbert 2018). That cannot be
determined because this is the only occurrence of þis azuh.
To conclude this section, subject relativization must have an overt D-element (e.g.
sa-ei) or personal pronoun (e.g. ik-ei), or a bare complementizer with gender agree-
ment (sei or izei). This is true even with heads of low deictic force, hence sa azuh saei
or sa azuh izei ‘whoever’, but not *sa azuh þei (Harbert 2018). Þei is licensed to
indefinite nonspecific heads in nonsubject relativization. Contrast (197) and (198).
(197) þisƕanoh saei afaikiþ mik (Mt 10:33)
‘(I will disown) whomsoever who disowns me’
Clauses relativized to indicative clauses are in the indicative (most examples above)
unless some modal value is expressed. Those embedded in imperative or optative
clauses can but need not be optative, depending on modal nuance (cf. Köhler 1872:
126–33; Burckhardt 1872: 19f.; Mourek 1892: 273–81; Bernhardt 1877: 34; 1896: 133f.):
(199) a) gif mis, sei undrinnai mis dail aiginis (Lk 15:12)
give I.dat rel:f fall.3sg.opt I.dat share property.gen
‘give me the share of property that (likely) falls to me’33
b) ei ƕazuh saei saiƕiþ þana sunu . . . aigi libain
comp each who see.3sg D son have.3sg.opt life
aiweinon (Jn 6:40)
eternal
‘that everyone who (in fact) beholds the son . . . may have everlasting life’
In a direct question, the verb in a relative clause is optative only when it has some
modal value (Schirmer 1874: 27ff.), as in (200).
(200) a) ƕas sa ist sa-ei frawaurhtins afletai (Lk 7:49)
who D.nom.sg.m is nom.sg.m-rel sins let.go:3sg.opt
‘who is this who would (dare to) forgive sins?’
b) as ist g(u)þ sa-ei us-þinsai izwis (Bl 2v.24)
who is god nom.sg.m-rel out-draw.3sg.opt you.acc.pl
‘who is the god that can take you away?’ [= Dan 3:16: Petersen 2016: 174]
33 The syntax is closer to Lat. quae mē contingit ‘which befalls me’ (VL 1976: 178) than to Gk. dós moi
tò epibállon méros ‘give me the falling-to portion’ (Marold 1882: 44; Odefey 1908: 48).
9.37 Mood in relative clauses 439
The following contrasting pairs illustrate that the optative is not forced grammatically:
(201) a) [ni]st sa-ei nasjai ufar þuk f(rauj)a (Bl 1r.11)
neg.is nom.sg.m-rel save.3sg.opt over you lord
‘there is no one who (can) save more than you, Lord’
b) ni manna-hun auk ist saei taujiþ maht (Mk 9:39)
neg man-indf for is who do.3sg might
‘for there is no one who will (in fact) perform a miracle’
[Gk. oudeìs gár estin hòs poiē ś ei dúnamin ‘id.’] (cf. Mourek 1892: 280)
The optative in (202a) translates Gk. hòs àn apolūsēi ‘whoever should divorce’, and the
indicative in (202b) renders the v.l. pãs ho apolūōn ‘everyone divorcing’ (Bernhardt
1877: 33; Mourek 1892: 266f.). The Byzantine main text repeats hòs àn apolūsēi.
In (203a–c), mood shift to the optative is motivated by the fact that the truth value
of the proposition is not subject to verification (cf. Sallwürk 1875: 25; Odefey 1908: 58).
(203) a) ni waiht . . . ist gahuliþ, þat–ei ni
neg thing is hidden.nom.sg.n which neg
andhuljaidau (Mt 10:26)
reveal.3sg.opt.pass
‘nothing is hidden that shall not be revealed’
b) n[is]t sa-ei waurkjai þiuþ (Bl 1r.21 = Rom 3:12)
neg.is nom.sg.m-rel work.3sg.opt good
‘there is no one that does good’
c) ((ni ainshun . . . ist manne, saei ni gawaurkjai
neg anyone . . . is men.gen who neg work.3sg.opt
maht)) (Lk 9:50)
might
‘there is no one who shall not perform a miracle’
In (203a) the optative translates a Greek future. For (203b), the main Gothic corpus
lacks the Romans passage, but with Bl 1r.21, cf. Lat. nōn est quī faciat bonum, with a
subjunctive verb in a so-called relative clause of characteristic, differing from the Gk.
440 Verbal and sentential syntax
poiõn khrēstótēta ‘doing goodness’. Like (203b) is (203c), for which the Greek text (Mk
́ ‘will perform’. Contrast (201b),
9:39; not in the Luke interpolation) has fut ind poiēsei
which is stated as a fact.
A free relative is one without an antecedent. In free relatives, the relative construct can
be in the case required by the syntax either of the superordinate clause or of its own
embedded clause. The general rule is that the more oblique case prevails: acc over
nom, dat/gen over nom, acc (details in Eckardt 1875: 32–6; Harbert 2007: 466ff.).
In (204) þizei depends on þaurban* ‘need’, which takes genitive complements
(§4.29). Þammei in (205) is due to us (§6.19), and in (206) to fraletada (§4.55).
(204) a) wait auk atta izwar þiz-ei jūs
know.3sg for father your gen.sg.n-rel you.nom.pl
þaurbuþ (Mt 6:8)
need.2pl
‘for your father knows what (i.e. that which) you need’
b) bugei þiz-ei þaurbeima du dulþai (Jn 13:29)
buy.2sg.impv gen.sg.n-rel need.1pl.opt to feast.dat
‘buy what we need for the feast’
*Þamma þanei ‘to him whom’ (cf. þans þaiei, þans þanzei, þaim þaiei, þo þoei, þizos
sei, etc.) should make the clause attributive; substantive relative clauses like (207) have
‘attraction’ (Kapteijn 1911: 300f.).
Þatei can also appear as a pronoun in free relatives:
9.38 Free relatives 441
Þatei is technically ambiguous: acc as object of ufar and/or nom as subject of gameliþ
ist. Since the oblique case normally prevails, þatei may be accusative (so, e.g. Snædal).
Perceptually, of course, the ambiguity can be responsible for the reanalysis that
enabled a free relative to take its case from its own or its superordinate clause.
In (211), which should be correlative, þatei behaves like a free relative with the inter-
pretation ‘have you not read this, namely, that which David did?’.
(211) ni þata ussuggwud þat-ei gatawida Daweid (Lk 6:3)
neg D.acc.sg.n read.2pl.pret sg.n-rel do.3sg.pret David
‘have you not read this, what David did?’
The fact that (212) is a virtual paraphrase of (211) could suggest a possible free rela-
tive with interrogative a ‘what?’
(212) ni – u ussuggwuþ aiw ƕa gatawida Daweid (Mk 2:25)
neg-Q read.2pl.pret ever what do.3sg.pret David
‘have you never read what David did?’
There are several problems with this interpretation. First, it would be anomalous
because otherwise forms of interrogative as do not occur in relative clauses. Second,
34 This is known as case accommodation (McCreight Young 1988: 27ff., with German examples;
cf. Harbert 2007: 468f.). In (1c), what can accommodate the object case of know and the subject case of
bothers. By contrast, whom (1b) can only accommodate the object case of know, and who (1a) is at least of
questionable grammaticality.
(1) a) ?who I know bothers me
b) *whom I know bothers me
c) what I know bothers me
In feature terms, what is underspecified for nom / acc case and accommodates both. Whom is more
lexically specified than who. Since English allows who as an object (who did you see?), it must be under-
specified for acc, i.e. [+nom, uacc], while whom, which can match only acc, must be [+acc, -nom].
442 Verbal and sentential syntax
relative clauses require a complementizer (Harbert 2018). Third, the Greek text has
interrogative tí ‘what?’, in contrast to relative hó in (211). In short, (212) must be an
embedded question (Wayne Harbert, p.c.).
Complementizer þatei has a dative counterpart þammei ‘(in) that’ from dative pro-
noun þamma + ei. This is denied by Afros (2006), based partly on a different analysis
and partly on the erroneous belief that complementizers “by definition are indeclin-
able” (p. 14). In fact, inflected complementizers occur in Middle Welsh, West Flemish,
and several other Germanic and other languages (Miller 2010: ii. 96ff., w. lit).
Bare ei in (213) and (214) is a complementizer to a right-adjoined clause that is
indexed with the matrix complement þata, þamma (cf. Klinghardt 1877: 176ff.).
(213) þat-ain wait ei blinds was . . . (Jn 9:25)
D-one.n know.1sg comp blind.nom.sg.m was.3sg
‘this/that one thing I know, that he was blind’
35 This is denied by Afros (2006: 13f.) because of þata . . . þatei (e.g. Lk 10:11, Phil 1:25B) for þata . . . ei.
This misses the point that þatei originated from the latter, but when þatei became a complementizer on a
par with ei, it could be used correlatively as well. This origin of þatei is confirmed by its frequency with
factive verbs and absence with verbs of willing, imagining, supposing, asking, purposives, etc. (Musić 1929:
255ff.). Slavic parallels also support the correlative origin (Musić 1929: 238), as do parallels from other
early IE languages (Hock 1991).
Þat-ain could itself be relativized: þatain-ei þize <þizei> unledane ei gamuneima (Gal 2:10B) ‘this one
thing (they asked) that we remember the poor’. This is an etymological interpretation. Synchronically,
þatainei (35x ~ þataine Sk 1.2.9) can be analyzed everywhere as an adverb meaning ‘only’.
Þata . . . (þat)ei differs from þatei . . . þata in manna auk þatei saijiþ þata jah sneiþiþ (Gal 6:7A ~ þatuh B)
‘for a man, what he sows, that also shall he reap’ (Gk. hò gàr eān speirẽi ánthrōpos, toũto kaì therísei). The
Gothic change in word order emphasizes the parallelism of the two clauses (Kapteijn 1911: 334).
9.39 Relatives and correlatives 443
The structures in (214) are unparalleled in the extant versions of the Greek text, where
the equivalent passage has khaírete hóti ‘rejoice that’. In its first occurrence, þamma . . . ei
is correlative: þamma is a D-word and ei a complementizer. The second occurrence is
less clear: in þammei (< þamma ei) can be either ‘in this that’ or ‘in that’, i.e. a com-
pound complementizer. Compare (216).
(216) faginoþ miþ mis þammei bigat lamb mein þata fralusano (Lk 15:6)
‘rejoice with me (in) that I found my lost sheep’
According to Pennington (2010: 416), it is unclear why Gothic has þammei instead of
unte ‘because’, but it was treated as a factive emotive rather than a causal clause, the
overlap being that the clause states the cause of the emotion (cf. GrGS 275).
Consider next (217).
(217) jah froþun þammei siun ga-saƕ (Lk 1:22)
and realized.3pl vision prfx-saw.3sg
Is the proper interpretation ‘and they realized that he had seen a vision’ (Miller 1975)
or ‘and they realized this, that he had seen a vision’ (cf. Afros 2006, 2010)? There are
examples for which Afros’ analysis (2006: 8, 14; 2010: 8) is the only one feasible. For
instance, in (218), þaimei patterns like þaim þoei, for which cf. (219).
(218) þaim–ei iupa sind fraþjaiþ ni þaim
dat.pl.n–rel on.high are ponder.2pl.opt neg D.dat.pl.n
þoei ana airþai sind (Col 3:2A/B)
nom.pl.n-rel on earth are
‘pay attention to those (things) which are on high, not
to those (things) which are on earth’
[Gk. tà ánō phroneĩte, mē tà epì tẽs gẽs ‘ponder the (things) above, not those on
the earth’ with nounless DPs containing an adverb (Kapteijn 1911: 354)]
In (219–21), þaim / þaim-ei must get case from ana, in because prepositions with
overt complements in Gothic require case valuing by the preposition.36
36 This differs from the claim by Afros (2006: 7f.) that Ps in Gothic require overt complements. In fact,
several Ps with null object have been documented (§§6.5, 6.42).
444 Verbal and sentential syntax
The examples above show that there is no motivation for considering þaimei
another complementizer. Note also þiz-ei ‘(about) this that’ in (222), where gen þiz- is
required as complement to kara ‘be concerned’ (§4.10).
(222) ni - u kara þuk þiz-ei fraqistnam (Mk 4:38)
neg-Q care you.acc gen.sg-rel perish.1pl
‘do you not care about the (fact) that we are perishing?’
The issue in §9.39 is whether þammei in all of its occurrences is compositional or not.
Once þamma ei contracts to þammei, there is an easy reanalysis from ‘and they realized
this, that he had seen a vision’ to ‘and they realized that he had seen a vision’—the very
same reanalysis that occurred from þata ei to þatei. Another point made by Streitberg
(1920: 239), Miller (1975), and Harbert (2007: 416) is that, since the same verbs take þatei
complements, the reanalysis was necessary because þatei clauses would be difficult to
motivate to obligatory dative verbs. This means that Gothic had two options at its dis-
posal: (i) treat þammei (etc.) compositionally, or (ii) take þammei as a noncomposi-
tional complementizer. The fact that þaimei could be replaced by þaim þoei is evidence
for the change from (i) to (ii) within the history of Gothic, the change that provided for
the (partially executed) split between substantive and attributive relative clauses (§9.38).
Verbs that take complement clauses with þammei include fraþjan ‘think, realize’
(Mk 7:18), gaumjan ‘see, notice’ (Lk 17:15, Mk 16:4, Jn 6:5), gatrauan ‘trust’ (Phil 2:24B;
2Tim 1:12A/B), faginon ‘rejoice’ (Lk 15:6). Verbs of this class can also take þatei:
gatrauan (2Cor 2:3A/B, Rom 8:38A), fraþjan (Jn 8:27), gaumjan (Sk 7.4.5f.). It is
impossible to prove that the meaning of þammei is always different from þatei, as
Afros (2006) claims. Also, the fact that, in all instances, the Greek text has hóti ‘that’
suggests that this was the translation target and that þammei is genuine Gothic but
residual. The Vetus Latina manuscripts similarly have quod, quia, quoniam ‘that’.
In summary, although dative þamm- appears to be dependent on the matrix verb,
which was true in pre-Gothic and remains an option within Gothic, þammei is in fact
rare and the same verbs also take þatei complements. Except in relatives like (215),
þammei is largely calcified. Not all verbs that take dative case admit þammei. For
instance, galaubjan ‘believe’ takes dative NP complements (§4.43) but only þatei
clauses (11x in the Gospel of John alone), never þammei except in the sense of ‘believe
9.41 Complements of reflective verbs 445
in’, e.g. galaubjaiþ þammei insandida (Jn 6:29) ‘believe in him whom he sent’. A few
verbs came to be lexically marked to trigger þammei. Since these verbs also admit
þatei (some also ei) and other complement structures, there is some limited evidence
against a productive synchronic case-driven derivation, except in relatives like (215)
and other case forms in (204–7) and (220–2). For at least some Goths, then, þatei and
þammei were compound complementizers.
(224) hausideduþ þatei qiþan ist (Mt 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43, etc.)
heard.2pl comp said.nom.sg.n is
‘you heard that it is/has been said’
Embedded questions introduced by a reflective verb behave the same and take opta-
tive only if modal value is present (Köhler 1872: 98–102; Schirmer 1874: 29f.; Rousseau
2012: 236). The following are all indicative:
(230) wiss-uh þan Iesus ƕarjai sind þai ni galaubjandans (Jn 6:64)
knew-and then Jesus who are.3.pl D neg believing.nom.pl.m
‘and then Jesus knew who the nonbelievers are’
For (232) the Greek text has a free relative. A form of interrogative as ‘who?’ would
be anomalous in a free relative (§9.38). Also, relative clauses have a complementizer
and embedded - words do not. Consequently, this is most likely an embedded ques-
tion (Wayne Harbert, p.c.). Eckardt (1875: 6) cites one other example like this.
37 This is consistent with the hypothesis by Willmott (2007: 113–52) that in Homeric Greek the opta-
tive roughly expresses an event that differs from the speaker’s worldview.
9.42 The dependent optative 447
dependent on the matrix time frame. For those that are in switch reference (233) or
negated (234) the optative with ei (never þatei) is the norm.
(233) ƕa nu wileiþ ei taujau þamm-ei qiþiþ
what now want.2pl that do.1sg.opt D.dat.sg-rel call.2pl
þiudan Iudaie (Mk 15:12)
king.acc.sg Jew.gen.pl
‘what then do you want that I do to the one you call king of the Jews?’
For (234) Gothic has no example of wiljan ni + inf ‘want to not . . . ’, not because ogan*
does not exist (Schulze 1927: 133f.), which would affect only this example, but because
Gothic seems to have neg raising with wiljan + inf.: ni waiht wilda taujan (Philem 14)
‘I didn’t want to do anything’ for *wilda ni taujan waiht ‘I wanted to not do a thing’ ~
*wilda ni waiht taujan ‘I wanted to do nothing’. For jabai as ni wili waurkjan (2Thess
3:10) ‘if anyone is unwilling to work’, sentential negation is more likely than constitu-
ent negation with raising from *jabai as wili ni waurkjan ‘if anyone is willing to not
work’—unless the latter would have been realized as *jabai as wili ei ni waurkjaiþ.
Clauses of fearing presuppose the likelihood of a situation and simultaneously
express a counterfactual hope for the opposite (Timberlake 2007: 319). Combined
with their unrealized nature, mood shift is licensed. The complementizer is typically
ibai ‘that, lest’ or ibai aufto ‘lest by chance; that by some means’ (Köhler 1872: 79–82;
Burckhardt 1872: 25f., 36; Schirmer 1874: 42f.; Kameneva 2017: 156f.).
(235) og, ibai aufto … riurja
fear.1sg lest by.chance corrupted.nom.pl.n
wairþaina fraþja izwara (2Cor 11:3B)
get.to.be:3pl.opt mind.nom.pl.n your.nom.pl.n
‘I fear that somehow your minds may become corrupted’
Verbs of hoping, supposing, trusting, and the like also look to the future, are thus
unrealized, and trigger mood shift, e.g. wenja ei kunneiþ (2Cor 13:6B) ~ wenja þatei
kunneiþ (2Cor 13:6A) ‘I hope that you (will) know’, wenja ei und andi ufkunnaiþ (2Cor
1:13A/B) ‘I hope you will understand to the end’ (Delbrück 1904: 217).
Nonnegated hugjan ‘suppose’ takes a finite embedded clause only one time, and the
verb is optative:
(237) jainai hugidedun þatei is bi slep qeþi (Jn 11:13)
those.nom.pl.m suppose.3pl.pret comp he about sleep talk.3sg.pret.opt
‘they supposed that he was talking about sleep’
Verbs of the asking class admit several complement clause types, e.g. ‘whether’, ‘how’,
‘that’ (only ei). Since the first license a full range of subordinate tenses, there is no
tense harmony (Rousseau 2012: 238). An inquiry about ‘how’ something presupposed
to be true occurred is indicative (ibid.). The third do not license a full range of tenses
in the subordinate clause independent of those in the matrix clause (cf. Mourek 1893: 168).
Embedded verbs are in the optative with tense harmony. In the following, matrix and
subordinate verbs are preterite but the latter have no temporal value (cf. Balg 1891:
277; GE 240, 244):
(238) a) bedun ina ei imma attaitoki (Mk 8:22)
asked.3pl he.acc.sg comp he.dat.sg touch.3sg.pret.opt
‘they asked him that he touch him’
b) bedun ina ei uslaubidedi im . . . galeiþan (Lk 8:32)
asked.3pl him comp allow.3sg.pret.opt they.dat go.inf
‘they asked him that he allow them to go’
The Latin versions (VL 1970: 70) also require sequence of tenses, e.g. sī (ali)quid
vidēret ‘if/whether he saw anything’. The Greek has epērōtā ́ autòn eí ti blépei ‘he was
asking him if he sees anything’ (v.l. blépeis ‘you see’, not in the Byzantine main text).
Ga-sai an ‘catch sight of ’ intercalates the clitics u and a, allegedly mirroring the
Greek order eí ti ‘if anything’ (Danielsen 1968: 123, w. lit), but (i) left-periphery
elements seldom match the Greek order (§6.39), and (ii) the construction is native
Gothic (Grewolds 1932: 4f.; Eythórsson 1995: 123, 130ff.; Ivanov 1999; Jasanoff 2004:
904; LHE 291; Rousseau 2016: 110, 413, 579).
Entries (240) and (241) involve embedded questions to predicates of implied
inquiry.
9.43–45 Mood shift 449
For (240), the Greek verb is légei (3sg pr ind) ‘says’. The tense of Goth. qeþi depends
on se un du sis misso ‘looked at one another’, as in most Vet. Lat. MSS (VL 1963: 152):
aspiciēbant . . . haesitantēs dē quō dīceret [impf sbj] ‘they looked . . . deliberating about
whom he was speaking’. In (241), Gothic matches cod. Brix. even with the interpolation
((þatei swa þiuþida izai)) = quod sīc benedīxisset eam ‘that he had blessed her thus’
(Schaubach 1879: 14, w. lit; Francovich Onesti 2011: 209).
Tense harmony is also observed with verbs like sokjan ‘seek’:
(242) sokidedun ƕaiwa ina inn-at-bereina (Lk 5:18)
seek.3pl.pret how he.acc in-to-bear.3pl.pret.opt
‘they sought how they might bring him in’ (i.e. ‘sought a way to bring him in’)
With participles, which have no morphological tense, the harmony reveals the
intended time reference:
(243) ni bigitandans ƕaiwa inn-at-bereina ina (Lk 5:19)
neg finding.nom.pl.m how in-to-bear.3pl.pret.opt he.acc
‘having not found a way to bring him in’ (i.e. ‘when they could not find a way . . . ’)
With epistemic verbs, the speaker asserts the validity of the utterance. Any epistemic
verb can have its complement clause verb in the optative when unrealized, boulomaic,
potential, or in a second-hand report (Köhler 1872: 91ff., 107–12; Schirmer 1874: 30–3).
Although verbs of thinking are epistemic, there are situations in which an optative
is used. In (244), the complement is either unrealized/potential, or an opinion not
shared by the translator (classified differently in Rousseau 2012: 234).
(244) þugkeiþ im auk ei in filuwaurdein
seem.3sg they.dat.pl for comp in much.word.ness
seinai andhausjaindau (Mt 6:7)
poss.refl.dat.sg.f heed.3pl.opt.pass
‘for they think that in their excess verbiage they will be listened to’
́
The Greek verb is indicative eisakousthēsontai (fut pass 3pl) ‘will be listened to’.
450 Verbal and sentential syntax
For (245), the Greek text has ind ménei ‘remains’, and the Vulgate and Vetus Latina
have manet ‘id.’ (VL 1963: 142).
(245) weis hausidedum ana witoda þatei Xristus sijai du
we heard.1pl by law comp Christ be.3sg.opt for
aiwa (Jn 12:34)
ever
‘we heard by the law that Christ is [possibly?] for ever’
A negated matrix verb sets up a question as to the actuality of the realization, hence
the use of optative when the content is altered (cf. Mossé 1956: 195), especially when
correcting a possible assumption not shared by the speaker, or presenting the cause of
the event from a viewpoint other than the narrator’s (Bernhardt 1877: 13; 1885: 105;
1896: 134; Delbrück 1904: 217–27; Pennington 2010: 361; Rousseau 2012: 234):
(247) ni hugjaiþ ei qemjau (Mt 5:17)
neg think.2pl.opt comp come.1sg.pret.opt
‘do not think that I came’
In (249), the corresponding Greek text has an infinitive klēthẽnai ‘to be called’ rather
than a finite clause. Gothic can use infinitives with wairþs (1Cor 16:4A/B, 2Cor 3:5A/B,
etc.), especially when the subject of the infinitive is identical to that of the matrix verb,
but the negated phrase ni im wairþs ‘I am not worthy’ followed by ei and the optative
9.46 Final purpose clauses 451
is also paralleled (e.g. Mt 8:8). In this instance, the finite clause is preferred to either a
passive use of the infinitive or to a periphrastic passive infinitive (Harbert 1978: 114ff.;
Suzuki 1987b: 9f.; Berard 1993a: 322). For the different constructions in the ancient
sources, see Marold (1881a: 153ff.).
Even with a negated matrix verb a statement presupposed to be factual is indicative,
as with the factive emotive predicate faginon ‘rejoice’ in (250).
(250) ni faginoþ ei þai ahmans izwis
neg rejoice.2pl comp D.nom.pl.m spirits you.dat.pl
ufhausjand (Lk 10:20)
heed.3pl
‘do not rejoice (at the fact) that the spirits obey you’
38 See Köhler (1872: 82–7, 112ff.), Burckhardt (1872: 11–15), Schirmer (1874: 33–41), Klein (1992a:
350), Ehrenfellner (1998: 230, 232), Pennington (2010: 303–24, 364–98), Netunaeva & Čuxarev-
Xudilajnen (2017).
452 Verbal and sentential syntax
The Gospels contain 137 examples of affirmative purpose clauses with ei (generally
corresponding to Gk. hína or hópōs: Pennington 2010: 366) and 15 negative ei ni
purposives (ibid. 305). Purpose clauses are rare with þei (Jn 6:7, 12, 7:35, 16:33) and
þeei (Jn 6:38, 2Cor 2:4A/B; but see §9.35). In the Gospels the verb follows ei directly
163x vs. 26 of all other orders (Pennington, p. 310); cf. (253).
(253) nauþei innatgaggan, ei usfullnai gards meins (Lk 14:23)
‘compel (them) to come in, that my house may become full (of guests)’
Faurþizei ‘before’, which requires the optative, is accompanied by the preterite opta-
tive because that event is prior to the eventuality of the biþe clause. There is no tense
sequencing in qaþ . . . waurþi, as shown by the parallel passage (Jn 13:19) with nonpast
qiþa ‘I say’. The rest is the same. The purposive ei . . . galaubjaiþ is in primary sequence
after wairþai.
Clauses indicating intent can be introduced by duþe ei ‘to this (end) that, for this
(reason) that’ (Douse 1886: 254), illustrated in (257).
(257) ibai lukarn qimiþ duþe ei uf melan satjaidau (Mk 4:21)
Q lamp come.3sg for.this comp under bushel put.3sg.opt.pass
‘a lamp (doesn’t) come for this purpose that it be put under a basket, does it?’
Negative purpose clauses are introduced by ei ( . . . ) ni + opt, usually for Gk. hína /
hópōs mē + sbj (cf. Ehrenfellner 1998: 229; Pennington 2010: 368ff.; Klein 2011: 140):
9.46 Final purpose clauses 453
An affirmative purposive is coordinated with the negative but ei is not repeated. Greek
repeats the complementizer: hína mē mianthõsin, all’ hína phágōsin tò páskha ‘id .’.
Ni does not have to be adjacent to ei, as shown in (260).
(260) ei ƕeh wrakja galgins Xristaus ni winnaina (Gal 6:12B)
comp only persecution cross.gen Christ.gen neg suffer.3pl.opt
‘only so that they may not suffer persecution because of the cross of Christ’
One rationale for ibai may be that (261) is semantically close to an implied clause of
fearing (‘come to terms . . . [for fear] that your opponent may hand you over’), where
ibai is the norm (§9.42); cf. ibai an for Gk. mḗpote ‘lest ever’ (cf. Klein 2011: 140f.).
For Kameneva (2017), ibai introduces a hypothetical undesired consequence.
When the entire clause is negated, and an alternative provided, ni(h) þeei . . . ak(ei)
‘not that . . . but (that)’ is used (Douse 1886: 254; Ehrenfellner 1998: 232). See (262).
(262) atstaig us himina, nih þeei taujau wiljan
descend.1sg.pret from heaven neg comp do.1sg.opt will.acc.sg.m
meinana, ak wiljan þis sandjandins mik (Jn 6:38)
my.acc.sg.m but will D.gen.sg.m sending.gen.sg.m me
‘I have come from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of the one sending me’
To conclude this section, the optative is the norm with purpose clauses, most of
which are introduced by ei, negative ei ni.
39 Even when distinguished, the specific properties were sometimes confused. For instance, Balg (1891:
277–80) gives a mostly correct account of purpose clauses but wrongly states that the optative is the norm
for result clauses. Bernhardt (1877: 22), Douse (1886: 255), and Delbrück (1904: 242), by contrast, note
that indicative is usual in result clauses.
9.47–8 Result and conditional clauses 455
(268) ƕas frawaurhta, sa-u þau fadrein is, ei blinds gabaurans warþ (Jn 9:2)
‘who sinned, this (man) or his parents, that he was born blind?’
(269) allai sildaleikjandans, swaei sokidedun miþ sis misso (Mk 1:27)
‘all being amazed, so that they discussed with one another’
́
Negative result clauses are generally introduced by swaswe ni + ind (= Gk. hōste
mḗ), as in (270).
(270) sleidjai filu, swaswe ni mahta manna
fierce.nom.pl much so.as neg could.3sg man.nom.sg
usleiþan (Mt 8:28)
pass.inf
‘(they were) very violent, so that no man could go past’
An infinitive is rare in Gothic result clauses. Apelt (1874: 290) cites six examples (cf.
Balg 1891: 290f.), but differences obtain among them. Consider (271) and (272).
(271) wegs mikils warþ in marein, swaswe þata skip gahuliþ wairþan (Mt 8:24)
‘a great storm arose on the sea, so the boat was getting covered over’
Since (271) probably involves accusative and infinitive [lit. ‘so as the boat to get covered
over’] and has no licensing superordinate verb (§§9.27–31), it is a direct calque on
Greek and, though defended by Curme (1911: 359–65), of questionable grammaticality
(Apelt 1874: 290; Streitberg 1920: 212; Harbert 1978: 223). But (272) is different, if it is
indeed a result clause and not a purposive (so e.g. Curme 1911: 365ff.). Manwjan ren-
ders the Greek aor inf hetoimásai ‘to prepare’, but the infinitive does not have an
accusative subject, and nothing inhibits grammaticality in Gothic. Pennington (2010:
402ff.) restricts his analysis to passages in which a Greek infinitive is translated by a
finite verb. Of those, all but one ((265) above) have a preterite in Gothic.
To conclude this section, the indicative is the norm with result clauses, generally
introduced by (swa)swe, negative swaswe ni.
that i is true in a world and then so is j, but if it were to happen the i were not true,
one should expect ¬ j” (Timberlake 2007: 321f., w. lit).
Conditionals presuppose that the contingency is somehow tentative or hypothetical.
Three cardinal patterns of explicit conditionals occur crosslinguistically: (i) general or
particular conditionals, whenever a situation occurs, or on the chance that it occur on
this occasion, a specific consequence is expected; (ii) potential conditionals, in which
the condition is uncertain and several eventualities and outcomes are imagined; (iii)
counterfactual conditionals, in which the condition is known not to be actual, but is
discussed as an alternative reality (cf. Timberlake 2007: 322).
In Gothic, realis conditionals (those capable of fulfilment) mostly take the indica-
tive. The nonpast optative expresses possibility or an implied command, and the pret-
erite optative impossibility or counterfactuality (GrGS 277ff.; Burckhardt 1872: 15–18;
Köhler 1872: 116–24; Schirmer 1874: 11–15, 43–6; Bernhardt 1877: 22–32; Weisker 1880;
Balg 1891: 283–6; Delbrück 1904: 257–75; Marić & Turković 2008: 161–4; Rousseau
2012: 210–15; Netunaeva & Čuxarev-Xudilajnen 2017).
Similarly, past general or particular conditionals use the preterite forms with jabai
or nothing,40 as also in the negative with the conjunction nih.
(275) jabai ƕas gaurida, ni mik gaurida (2Cor 2:5A/B)
if indf:nom.sg.m grieve.3sg.pret neg me.acc grieve.3sg.pret
‘if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me’
40 It is sometimes stated that conditionals can be introduced by jabai or adversative iþ. This is incorrect.
Iþ ‘and, but’ is a conjunction (Schirmer 1874: 44; Weisker 1880: 12; cf. Sturtevant 1947b: 410f.), and may
co-occur with the protasis complementizer jabai ‘if ’, in which case it is outermost in the clause: iþ jabai
occurs 39x (5 dupl). In the absence of jabai, the verb moves to the left periphery, to Foc(us), on one
account (Ferraresi 2005: 153, 161, w. lit).
9.48–51 Conditional clauses 457
The future/eventual conditional regularly has nonpast indicative in the protasis and
apodosis (cf. Klein 1992a: 359):
(276) unte qaþ þatei jabai wastjom is atteka ganisa (Mk 5:28)
for said comp if garment.dat.pl his touch.1sg recover.1sg
‘for she said that if I touch his garments, I’ll be healed’
The Greek text has a modal particle and the subjunctive in the protasis (kàn hápsōmai
́
‘if I touch’) and, in this instance, fut pass sōthē somai ‘I will be saved’ in the apodosis.
Nonpast hypothetical conditionals have a nonpast optative in both the protasis and
the apodosis.
(277) jabai ƕas þuk ana-nauþjai rasta
if indf:nom.sg.m you.acc.sg on-force.3sg.opt mile.acc.sg
aina, gaggais miþ imma twos (Mt 5:41)
one.acc.sg.f go.2sg.opt with him two.acc.pl.f
‘if anyone should force on you one mile, you should go with him two’
Counterfactuals have the pret opt in protasis and apodosis. Affirmative conditionals
can be introduced by jabai or verb movement to the left periphery, with apodotic þau
or aiþþau. A negative protasis can be signaled by niba(i) ‘unless, if not’ or ni-h (from
1.*né kwe ‘if not’ LIPP 2.704?) and a negative apodosis by ni.
(279) jabai allis Moses galaubidedeiþ,
if at.all Moses believe.2pl.pret.opt
ga - þau - laubidedeiþ mis (Jn 5:46)
be-in.that.case-lieve.2pl.pret.opt me.dat
‘if you had believed Moses at all, then you would have believed me’
In (282) and (283), the protasis has no complementizer, and the verb (negated in these
examples) moves to the left periphery, roughly parallel to the English glosses ‘were he
not’, ‘had I not come’ (cf. Eythórsson 1995: 31f.). The same is true of sa iþ wesi in (281),
except that sa ‘this (man)’ is topicalized. All examples without jabai are irrealis condi-
tionals in the preterite optative (Klein & Condon 1993: 48; Ferraresi 2005: 153).
Like all languages, Gothic has mixed conditionals, in which the apodosis is independ-
ent of the protasis. Whatever is logical can be expressed in a conditional. Fraletais in
(284) is a quasi-imperative (§9.57), and afaikai in (285) is boulomaic (§9.56).
(284) jabai idreigo sik, fraletais imma (Lk 17:3)
if repent.3sg refl forgive.2sg.opt him.dat
‘if he repents, (you should/must) forgive him’
In (287), a past event is stated as if hypothetical, and the future consequence is pre-
dictably in the nonpast indicative.41
(287) jabai mik wrekun jah izwis wrikand (Jn 15:20)
if me.acc persecute.3pl.pret and you.acc.pl persecute.3pl
‘if (i.e. since) they persecuted me, they will persecute you too’
Though a singular example, (288) begins as a counterfactual, but the nonpast opta-
tive kunnjau shifts the sequence of tenses, enabling the apodosis to be nonpast
(cf. Schirmer 1874: 12, 45).
(288) jabai qeþjau þatei ni kunnjau ina,
if say.1sg.pret.opt comp neg know.1sg.opt him.acc
sijau galeiks izwis liugnja (Jn 8:55)
be.1sg.opt like you.dat.pl liar.nom.sg.m
‘if I said that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you’
This example follows the Greek text precisely, but the construction is normal in all
Germanic languages.
Independence of the protasis and apodosis is indicated by the fact that the apodosis
can occur by itself, as in (289) (differently, Delbrück 1904: 205).
(289) maht wesi þata balsan frabugjan
possible.nom.sg.n be.3sg.pret.opt D.acc.sg.n perfume.acc.sg sell.inf
in managizo þau þrija hunda skatte (Mk 14:5)
for more than three hundred denarii
‘it would have been possible to sell the perfume for more than three hundred denarii’
Because of the ambiguity of neuters, this can be interpreted passively: ‘this ointment
might have been sold . . . ’ (§5.29; Douse 1886: 259; cf. GrGS 140).
41 Apodoses introduced by jah have connective semantics (Rousseau, e.g. 2016: 582); cf. (i).
(i) jabai nu guþ hauhiþs ist in imma, jah guþ hauheiþ ina in sis (Jn 13:32)
if now god glorified is in him, and god glorifies him in refl
‘now if God has been glorified in him, then/also God will glorify him in himself ’
460 Verbal and sentential syntax
Note especially the contrast between the direct assertion in (296) and the embed-
ded question in (297).
(296) witum þatei sa ist sunus unsar, jah þatei blinds gabaurans warþ (Jn 9:20)
‘we know that he is our son, and that he was born blind’
Ehrenfellner (1998: 237) asserts that Gothic has nothing closer than nasjan to the Gk.
fut prt sōś ōn, but some MSS have aor inf sõsai (Gering 1874: 296).
With gasai an, mood shift occurs when the subject is raised to the higher object
position: sokida gasai an Iesu, as wesi (Lk 19:3) ‘he sought to see Jesus who he was’,
i.e. ‘sought to learn who Jesus was’ (Moerkerken 1888: 44). But sai an can trigger
mood shift without raising, e.g. se un ar galagiþs wesi (Mk 15:47) ‘they saw where
he was laid’, sai an a wesi þata waurþano (Mk 5:14) ‘to see what it was that hap-
pened’.
9.54 Doubt
For the dubitative or deliberative function of the optative, see (300–1) (Burckhardt
1872: 6f.; Köhler 1872: 93–8; Schirmer 1874: 17–22; Bernhardt 1877: 10f.; Marić &
Turković 2008: 154f.).
(300) und ƕa at izwis sijau? und ƕa
up.to what with you.dat.pl be.1sg.opt up.to what
þulau izwis (Mk 9:19)
bear.1sg.opt you.acc.pl
‘how long am I to be with you? how long am I to put up with you?’
42 Those unfamiliar with the terminology are referred to the works in Nuyts & Van der Auwera (2016).
462 Verbal and sentential syntax
Indicative and optative alternate in (302), unless mood reduction (§9.55) is involved
(Rousseau 2016: 155).
(302) ƕa matjam aiþþau ƕa drigkam aiþþau ƕe wasjaima? (Mt 6:31)
‘what shall we eat, what shall we drink, with what are we to be clothed?’
In rhetorical questions the optative is also dubitative, as in nei auk þūhtedi (Sk 1.3.11)
‘for then would he not seem?’ (cf. §11.15).
As Vedic can reduce a verb to the injunctive, a form underspecified for tense and
mood (Kiparsky 1968; MPIE 4.2.4), Gothic can reduce mood or modality in a sequence
(Davis 1929; Rousseau 2016: 155f.; Joseph 2016).
In a number of examples, the optative expresses less precisely the content of the
modal verbs. In (304), for instance, Burckhardt (1872: 23) and Bernhardt (1877: 9f.)
attribute the optative to the double question, but (i) the optative is not a property of
double questions (Schulze 1907a: 563f.), and (ii) skuld ist establishes the modality that
is resumed in the less precise gibaima.43
(304) skuld-u ist kaisaragild giban kaisara þau ni-u
lawful-Q is tribute give.inf Caesar.dat or neg-Q
gibaima (Mk 12:14)
give.1pl.opt
‘Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or should we not give (it)?’
Although another account has prevailed (§5.29), the optatives in (305) and (306)
replace the modal verb magan*.
43 The Greek is less compact with dõmen ē mē dõmen? ‘should we give or should we not give?’; cf. skuld-u
ist unsis kaisara gild giban þau ni-u (Lk 20:22) ‘is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not?’.
9.55 Mood and modality reduction 463
These optatives (for Gk. pr ind esthíei ‘eats’) were once ascribed to the double ques-
tion. Kapteijn (1911: 351) denies this and advocates a stylistic contrast between real and
hypothetical, e.g. ‘who plants vines (at any time) and does not (eventually) eat their
fruit?’ (cf. Lat. fut edet in several MSS). Joseph (2016) argues for (right-to-left) mood
reduction. But if the optative is functionally like the injunctive, it should be able to
neutralize an indicative, as in (308) and (309) (Rousseau 2016: 155; cf. Bernhardt 1877:
32f.; Davis 1929: 428).
(308) saei nu gatairiþ . . . jah laisjai swa . . .
‘he who breaks (ind) . . . and teaches (opt) so . . .
iþ saei taujiþ jah laisjai swa (Mt 5:19)
but he who observes (ind) and teaches (opt) so’
(309) a) ƕazuh saei matjiþ þana hlaif aiþþau drigkai þana stikl (1Cor 11:27A)
‘whosoever eats (ind) the bread or drinks (opt) the cup’
b) jah biþe gamatjis jah gadrigkais þu (Lk 17:8)
‘and later you will eat (ind) and drink (opt)’
This construction is difficult to interpret because (i) some examples may involve
modal nuance, and (ii) mood reduction is not obligatory. With (309) compare with all
indicatives saei auk matjiþ jah drigkiþ unwairþaba (1Cor 11:29A) ‘for he who eats and
drinks unworthily’, saei matjiþ mein leik jah driggkiþ mein bloþ (Jn 6:54, 56) ‘he who
eats my body and drinks my blood’.
Erdmann (1874: 214) takes the indicative and optative to be equivalent in this con-
struction, implying mood reduction, and notes the same construction in Old Norse
and Old High German (Otfrid).
464 Verbal and sentential syntax
First person forms, as in (312), are traditionally referred to as hortatory (cf. Köhler
1872: 88; Burckhardt 1872: 6; Behaghel 1918; Braune 1918).
(312) þairhgaggaima jū und Beþlahaim jah saiƕaima waurd (Lk 2:15)
go.1pl.opt now to Bethlehem and see.1pl.opt word
‘let us go now directly to Bethlehem and see the word’
The 1 pl impv / ind prevails, as in galeiþam hindar þana marisaiw (Lk 8:22) ‘let us go
across the lake’ (Grimm 1837: 82ff.; Erdmann 1874: 216; Marić & Turković 2008: 151f.). In
the Epistles and first ten chapters of Luke, the opt is also found (Bernhardt 1877: 6f.).
So-called fulfillable wishes are expressed with the present optative. Those less likely
or incapable of fulfullment are expressed with preterite optative (GE 204).
Lack of wish fulfillment can also be expressed by the interjection wainei ‘would
that’ (1Cor 4:8A, 2Cor 11:1B, Gal 5:12B), as in (313) (Grimm 1857: 74, 78; Burckhardt
1872: 9; Bezzenberger 1873: 89; Schirmer 1874: 16; Bernhardt 1877: 2; Klinghardt 1877:
149f.; Feuillet 2014: 38).
(313) wainei jah us-maitaindau þai drobjandans izwis (Gal 5:12B)
would.that and out-cut.3pl.opt.pass D agitating.nom.pl.m you.acc.pl
‘how I wish those bothering you would even get castrated!’
Usþulan takes acc objects, as the continuation of (314) shows: akei jah usþulaiþ mik
‘but indeed you do put up with me’. The claim by Anderson (1938: 131) that meinaizos
is a calque of the Greek gen mou cannot be sustained. The Gothic translator merely
recast the syntax, perhaps out of deference for the Greek genitive in that position.
Negated commands are introduced by ni. The verb can be imperative, like ni
faurhtei (Mk 5:36, Lk 8:50) ‘do not fear’, ni draibei (Lk 7:6, 8:49) ‘do not bother’, ni
hugei (Rom 11:20A) ‘do not think’, ni gret (Lk 7:13) ‘do not cry’, 2pl ni gretiþ (Lk 8:52)
‘id.’ (classified as indicative by Snædal). More often, especially in the plural, it is opta-
tive, like ni hugjaiþ (Mt 5:17) ‘do not think’ (Bernhardt 1877: 5ff.). Generally speaking,
optatives for negated imperatives are very frequent; cf. (317, 318).
(317) ni horinos, ni maurþrjais, ni hlifais (Mk 10:19, Lk 18:20, Rom 13:9A)
‘do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal’
Morphologically, the 2pl indicative and imperative are the same, but in wk 2 verbs,
a form like faginoþ ‘rejoice’ can be 2pl indicative, imperative, or optative. The negated
command can only be imperative or optative. 2sg faginos* can be indicative or opta-
tive, but not imperative, which is fagino (Lk 1:28) ‘hail!’.
Infinitives can also function in implied commands, as in (319), which is technically
object control (§9.22). It is mentioned here because of the semantics of reinforcing
mode. Both (318) and (319) translate Gk. mē sunanamī gnūsthaí [not to be associated
with] ‘do not associate with’ (cf. Kapteijn 1911: 354).
(319) iþ nu gamelida izwis ni blandan (1Cor 5:11A)
but now write.1sg.pret you.dat.pl neg mingle.inf
‘but now I have written to you not to mingle’
In nih þan tweihnos paidos haban (Lk 9:3) ‘and do not have two tunics apiece’ (§3.28),
haban ‘to have’ is an exact translation of Gk. ékhein ‘id .’. Though unique in Gothic, it
is defended by Sturtevant (1926) as having an implied ‘I command you’ or the like.
(320) contains two optatives, one boulomaic or, more likely, reinforcing mode, the
second potential.
(320) (tau)jaina izwis mans swa jah jūs taujaiþ im (Mt 7:12)
do.3pl.opt you.dat.pl men as also you do.2pl.opt they.dat.pl
‘let men do to you as you would (potentially) do to them’45
One of the most frequent functions of the optative is to express potentiality, especially
in questions (GE 207), or eventuality (Köhler 1872: 102–6; cf. Mossé 1956: 194).
While the infinitive is preferred with subject control verbs (§9.21), a finite clause
can be substituted for nuance or other effect (Berard 1993a: 289f.), as in (321).
(321) sokidedun ƕaiwa ina inn-atbereina (Lk 5:18)
seek.3pl.pret how he.acc in-bring.3pl.pret.opt
‘they sought how they might bring him in’ (i.e. ‘sought a way to bring him in’)
Both the Greek and pre-Vulgate Latin texts have an infinitive, which would also have
been grammatical in Gothic (§§9.21, 9.23).
The optative in (322) states a potential eventuality (cf. Mourek 1895: 20), which may
be the bridge to the use of the optative with matrix negatives more generally.
(322) iþ sunus mans ni habaiþ ƕar haubiþ galagjai (Lk 9:58)
but son man.gen.sg neg has where head lay.3sg.opt
[but the son of man does not have anywhere he may (eventually) lay his head]
‘but the son of man does not have any place to lay his head’
45 The Greek text is more ambiguous than most English translations. Since the pre-Vulgate translators
evidently did not like the fact that the passage could be interpreted negatively, they inserted bona
(omnia . . . bona ‘all good things . . . ’). Despite the Latin influence, the forced positive reading was not
adopted by the Goths. One wonders whether this was intentional.
9.58 Eventuality and potentiality 467
Both negation and potentiality are illustrated in (323), but (324) shows that negation
is not necessary when an eventuality is at issue.
(323) ni haband ƕa matjaina (Mk 8:2)
neg have.3pl indf:acc.sg.n eat.3pl.opt
‘they do not have anything to eat’ (lit. ‘anything they can potentially eat’)
Contrast the definite past event ni gebuþ mis matjan (Mt 25:42C) ‘you did not give me
(something) to eat’. The infinitive is an argument. It may have a null object (Berard
1993a: 335–9; Melazzo 2004: 366) but more likely is optionally intransitive, as is typical
of food consumption verbs (Basilico 2008, w. lit).
Rousseau (2011: 321) implies that the bare and du infinitives are semantically identi-
cal, but in (325) the du infinitive is an adjunct (cf. Melazzo 2004: 366).
(325) ƕaiwa mag sa unsis leik giban du matjan (Jn 6:52)
how can D.nom.sg.m we.dat flesh give.inf to eat.inf
‘how can this (man) give us his flesh to eat?’
With giban and similar verbs, of course, it is the indirect object that controls the
infinitival subject (Melazzo 2004).
Example (326) is a Gothic interpretation of the Greek text which has a participle: ho
ékhōn õta akoúein akouétō ‘the one having ears to hear, let him hear’ (§9.16).
(326) saei habai ausona hausjandona, gahausjai (Mk 4:9)
he.that have.3sg.opt ears hearing heed.3sg.opt
‘he who (may) have ears (for) hearing, let him listen up’
A Gothic relative clause does not per se trigger mood shift (§9.37), and habai may be
potential but hardly ironic (pace Mourek 1892: 272, 277; see Bernhardt 1896: 133).
In (327), the Gothic text differs from the Greek which has both verbs in the indica-
tive: toũto tí estin hò légei ‘this, what is it that he is saying?’.
(327) þata ƕa sijai þat–ei qiþiþ (Jn 16:18)
D.nom.sg.n what be.3sg.opt acc.sg.n-rel say.3sg
‘what may this be that he is saying?’
The trigger for mood shift is most likely the quandary implicit in the question
(cf. Burckhardt 1872: 23; Bernhardt 1885: 104; cf. Delbrück 1904: 206).
In (328), the preterite optative, as is typical (8x out of 9), accompanies jau ‘indeed’
(q.v. in App.), but may still imply potentiality; cf. Bernhardt (1885: 104f.).
(328) sai, jau ainshun þize reike galaubidedi
lo indeed anyone D.gen.pl leader.gen.pl believe.3sg.pret.opt
468 Verbal and sentential syntax
The following examples are about eventualities that range from present to future
time, and the verbs are in the nonpast optative:
(329) þu þan bidjais, gagg in heþjon þeina (Mt 6:6)
thou when pray.2sg.opt go.impv in chamber.acc.sg.f your.acc.sg.f
‘you, when you pray, go into your chamber’
Gothic texts
This chapter contains a small sample of Gothic texts with key vocabulary and relevant
notes. The first texts are very simple, as an aid to the beginner. The chapter closes with
excerpts from the Bologna fragment.1
taujan ‘do’ (wk 1 §5.15): taujaina opt instead of a rare 3pl impv *taujandau (§5.1, ftn. 2)
in a prescription for all time (§9.57); opt taujaiþ indicates potentiality (§9.57).
For the forms, cf. the opt of ‘bear’: bairau*, bairais, bairai, bairaima, bairaiþ,
bairaina
izwis dat of jūs ‘you (pl)’ (§3.14)
manna (m -n- irreg §3.2) ‘man(kind), human being, person’ (App.)
swa ‘as, so’ (App.)
jah ‘and, also’ (App.)
jūs ‘you (pl)’ (§3.14)
im dat pl (all genders) of is, si, ita ‘he, she, it’ (§3.15)
sa, so, þata ‘this/that; he, she, it’ (§3.4)
auk ‘for, but, also’ (App.)
ist ‘is’: 3sg of wisan ‘be’ (§5.25)
witoþ (n -a-) ‘law’ (App.)
praufetes (and -u- stem praufetus) ‘prophet’: the nom pl is an -i- stem (§2.8, App.)
13. inn-gaggaiþ þairh aggwu daur unte braid daur jah rūms
in-go.2pl.opt through narrow door because broad door and roomy
wigs sa brigganda in fralustai jah
way D.nom.sg.m leading in(to) destruction.Dsg and
managai sind þai inngaleiþandans þairh þata.
many are those/they entering through that/it
inn-gaggan (§5.12) ‘go in, enter’: inn-gagg-aiþ optative for imperative inn-gagg-iþ
(= 2pl ind) in a prescription for all time (§9.56); inn can be separated with many
verbs but seems to be a prefix with gaggan (Goetting 2007: 315f.)
þairh + acc ‘through’ (§6.15)
aggwus* (adj -u-) ‘narrow’ (§§3.10, 11.4, App.)
daur (n -a-) ‘door’; the second daur is in a predicative construction (§§3.9, 11.4)
unte ‘because’ (§11.12, App.)
braiþs* (n braid) ‘broad’: strong form in predicative structure (§3.9)
rūms ‘spacious’ (App.): strong form used predicatively (§3.9)
wigs (m -a-) ‘road, way’ (App.): A–N order in predicative (§§3.9, 11.4, 11.9, App.)
briggan (pret brāhta) (irreg §5.12) ‘bring’: sa + weak participle (§3.13)
fra-lust-s (f -i-) ‘loss; destruction’ (§8.9): N fralusts, G fralustais, D fralustai, A fralust;
in + dat usually marks location and translates Gk. en + dat; in + acc is more usual
for direction (§6.13), esp. when translating Gk. eis ‘into’ + acc, as here (cf. Klein
1992b: 8f., 13)
managai nom pl m (strong) of manags* ‘much, many’ (App.)
inn-galeiþan ‘go into’ prefixed form of galeiþan ‘come, go’ (§§5.5, 6.37): the PrP is weak:
nom pl m -leiþandans; inn can be separated from finite forms of galeiþan (Goetting
2007: 315), but is prefixed with participles in some syntactic contexts (§6.39), here
in a relativizing function (§9.16)
ni ‘not’: the unmarked position of the verb is adjacent to ni and to the left of verbal
dependents (§§11.2, 11.4, 11.15)
magan* (prt prs) ‘can, be able’ (§§5.23, 5.24, App.)
bagms (m -a-) ‘tree’ (App.)
2 The author of the Bologna fragment (see Falluomini 2014: 288f., 303) embeds this passage together
with 2Tim 3:5A/B: þaiei habaidedun (Wulfila habandans) hiwi gagudeins· iþ | maht izos inwidandans· þaiei
iddjedun in wast|jom lambe· iþ innaþro þa(n) sind wulfos wilwan|dans · (Bl 2v.15–18) ‘those who had
[Wulfila ‘having’] a form of godliness yet disowning the power of that, those who walked in sheep’s clothes
but inwardly then are ravaging wolves’. Wulfila’s text does not have þa(n) ‘then’, which Falluomini (p. 287)
takes to be an addition by the author. Acc hiwi ‘form’ is attested only in 2Tim 3:5A/B and in the Bologna
fragment. The substitution of þaiei for þaim izei is likely motivated by the syntax of what precedes.
472 Gothic texts
þiuþeigs (adj -a-) ‘praised; good; perfect’ (§8.31; see þiuþi-qiss ‘blessing’ §7.6). Þiuþeigs
and goþs alternate through this passage and Lk 6:43, 45; each grouping, e.g.
bagme godaize | akrana goda, is punctuated by gataujiþ or gataujan, 2x each
(Kauffmann 1920: 219)
akran (n -a-) ‘fruit’ (App.)
ubils (adj -a-) ‘bad, evil’ (App.)
ga-taujan (wk 1 §5.15) ‘complete, accomplish, produce’ (§9.13); the infinitive is com-
plement of magan* (§9.20)
ni-h ‘and not’ (App.)
az-uh ‘each, every; everyone’ = as ‘who’ + -(u)h ‘and’ (§§3.16, 3.18, App.)
saei ‘who’ (rel) = sa ‘this/that, he’ + complementizer ei ‘that’ (§§9.34, 9.36)
qiþan, qaþ, qeþun (str 5 §5.9) ‘say’ (App.): the best attested verb in the Gothic corpus:
37% of all possible paradigmatic slots are filled (Snædal 2009a: 161ff.)
mis dat sg of ik ‘I’ (§3.14)
frauja (m -n-, nom/voc §4.6) ‘lord, master’ (§8.23, App.)
inn-galeiþiþ in ‘enters into’ occurs 4x as a precise rendering of the Greek text; the
preposition expresses ‘motion into’ (Goetting 2007: 336f.)
þiudangardi (f -jō-) [king-court] ‘kingdom’ (§§7.4, 11.4)
himins (m -a-) ‘sky, heaven’ (App.)
ak ‘but rather, however’ after a preceding negative (App.)
sa taujands ‘the one doing’: relative clause substitute (§9.16)
wilja (m -n-) ‘will; pleasure’ (§8.23, App.)
atta (m -n- §3.2) ‘father’: a hypocoristic (§2.3, App.)
meins (poss adj) ‘my’ (§§3.14, 8.28, App.)
in himinam ‘in (the) heavens’ (§11.4): PP with no D-word (§§3.5, 11.8)
þis in himinam ‘the one in heaven’; cf. þu in himinam, sa in himinam (§10.4)
at-iddja [to-went], prefixed form of iddja ‘went’, suppl pret of gaggan ‘go’ (§5.12)
dalaþ (adv) ‘down, to the ground’ (§3.31, App.)
rign (n -a-) ‘rain’ (§2.10, App.)
qiman, qam, qemum, qumans (str 4 §5.8) ‘come’ (App.)
a a (f -ō-) ‘(mass of) water’ (App.)
waian* (str 7 §5.11) ‘blow’ (§11.4, App.)
winds (m -a-) ‘wind’ (App.)
stigqan (str 3 §5.7) ‘clash’ (App.), bi-stigqan* ‘strike against’ (P-copy §6.43)
bi + dat ‘against’ (§6.8)
driusan* (str 2 §5.6) ‘fall’ (App.); gadraus (§9.13)
ga-suljan* (wk 1 §5.15) ‘lay the foundation; found’ (App.)
10.3 Matthew 5:27–28 475
27. Jah atiddja dalaþ rign jah qemun aƕos jah waiwoun windos
and came down rain and came waters and blew winds
jah bistugqun bi jainamma razna jah gadraus, jah
and struck against that house and fell and
was drus is mikils.
was fall its great
drus (m -i-) ‘fall’: only nom drus (1x), dat drusa (Lk 2:34) (cf. driusan ‘to fall’)
jah qemun a os jah waiwoun windos: note the five-syllable grouping with homoio-
teleuton (§1.6; Kauffmann 1920: 38)
weih-s (adj -a-) ‘holy’ (App.) is the base of 2.weihan* (wk 3) ‘sanctify’, ga-weihan
‘consecrate, bless’, weihnan* (wk 4 §5.18) ‘be(come) holy/hallowed’; weihnai is 3sg
opt ‘let thy name become venerated’ (§9.56)
þein ‘your’: since þein occurs instead of þeinata (§6.8), the short form may have been
used to maintain a five-syllable recitation group weihnai namo þein ‘your name
be(come) holy’, parallel to wairþai wilja þeins ‘your will be done’, or because þein
was more informal and intimate (cf. uns below)
qiman (str 4 §5.8) ‘come, arrive’; 3sg opt qimai is supposedly not aspectually equivalent
to Gk. elthétō (Davis 2002), but (i) qiman can be punctual or telic (Götti 1974: 64f.;
Katz 2016) and (ii) the Latin versions (VL 1972: 31) have the aspectually equivalent
pr sbj (ad)veniat ‘id.’. The sentence-initial verbs are stylistic (Kauffmann 1920: 72)
and match the Greek and Latin texts precisely.
þiudinassus (m -u-) ‘kingdom; kingly rule’ (cf. þiudans ‘king’ §8.4). Davis (2002) queries
why not simply reiki* (§8.20)? Since *qimai reiki þein would have five syllables,
violation of the rhythmic pattern implies that reiki is not the same thing. The Lord
is a þiudans (= Gk. basileús) ‘king’ with a þiudinassus, not just a reiks (= Gk. árkhōn)
‘(non-kingly) ruler, prince, commander’ (e.g. of this world, i.e. Satan; of the power of
the air) with a reiki* ‘(domain-specific) rule’. The reiks was under the þiudans (Pausch
1954: (13–)17). See the detailed discussion in Wolfram (1975). Þiudinassus occurs 8x
of the kingdom of God and 2x of pagan realms: þiudinassaus Teibairiaus (Lk 3:1) ‘of
the reign of Tiberius’, allans þiudinassuns þis midjungardis (Lk 4:5) ‘all the king-
doms of this world’. þiudinassus also differs from þiudangardi, which is ‘kingdom’
as a place that one can enter (§7.4; Kauffmann 1923: 44f.; Pausch 1954: 15; Kotin 1996)
sinteins* (epithet adj -a- with D: Mossé 1956: 176) ‘daily’ (sinteina conjectured at 2Cor
11:28B, rendering ho kath’ hēmérān ‘daily’), a construct unique to Gothic: sin- <
*sem- ‘one’ plus -teins < *dei-no-; cf. Ved. -dina- ‘day’ (GED 305; LIPP 2.141, 672,
675). Gk. epioúsion (only here and Lk 11:3) apparently meant ‘for the day’. Sinteins*
also occurs in Skeireins: sinteinom daupeinim ‘daily ablutions’ (3.2.11f.) with m
inserted as a manuscript correction (Bennett 1960: 34, 90). Vulgate supersubstantiālem
probably meant ‘surpassing (other) substances’, interpreting epioúsios as though epí
‘beyond’ + ousíā ‘essence’. Vet. Lat. cottīdiānum ‘daily; everyday’ (cf. VL 1972: 31) is
more accurate (cf. Marold 1881a: 172)
hlaif unsarana þana sinteinan: the Gothic syntax is typical (cf. sunus meins sa liuba
‘my beloved son’ §§3.10, 3.14), but stated as old information, not emphatic (Lichtenheld
1875: 34, 36). The syntax recurs elsewhere in early Germanic, and differs from Gk.
tòn árton hēmõn tòn epioúsion [the bread of.us the daily] (Stempel 2004: 560)
uns: the longer form unsis does not occur here, and uns is not explained by five-
syllable recitation groups, but it maintains an alternating rhythm: gíf uns hímma,
aflét uns þátei, ni bríggais úns in fraístubnjaì ak laúsei úns af þámma (Dickhoff
1913: 471). Other possible reasons exist for the short form (§3.14)
af-letan [off-let] in the sense of ‘forgive’ is ditransitive with dative of the person (§4.51);
for dat uns ‘us’, cf. þaim skulam unsaraim ‘our debtors’.
skula (m -n-) ‘debtor; guilty person’: attested forms: sg nom skula, acc skulan, pl nom
skulans, dat skulam. Þatei is a complementizer, and the construction means literally
478 Gothic texts
‘forgive us that we be debtors’ (Pausch 1954: 61; Peeters 1974b; Alcamesi 2009: 11).
The line is sometimes translated ‘forgive us what we owe’ (e.g. Douse 1886: 241;
Balg 1891: 229; Wright 1954: 292) with þatei as a free relative (acc sg n) depending
on skulans, a predicate adjective. Technically, since skula wisan can take a direct
object (þuk silban mis skula is [Philem 19] ‘you owe yourself to me’ §8.16), both
interpretations are possible. However, skula is an agent noun in the next line, and
for this line one would expect a verb skulum or opt *skuleima ‘(forgive us) what we
(may) owe’. Metlen (1933: 541) comments on the use of a clause in Gothic for a
phrase in Greek but cites no parallel for this. Mittermüller (1983: 55) misleadingly
calls skula ‘debtor’ a more concrete substitution for Gk. opheleímata ‘debts’. The
trade-off is rather between an agentive and a result noun, rendered as dēbita ‘debts’
in the Vulgate and Vetus Latina (VL 1972: 31)
ni: a generic negator, used with indicative, optative, imperative, and infinitive (§11.15)
fraistubni* (f -jō-) ‘temptation’ (§8.17): gen fraistubnjos, dat fraistubnjai, acc
fraistubnja, pl gen fraistobnjo. Despite the verb of motion, the dative occurs here
instead of the accusative with focus on the destination (see Van der Meer 1930: 68;
Zatočil 1933)
ubils (adj -a-) ‘bad, evil’: dat sg wk -in with D (Mossé 1956: 170). The Greek and
Latin texts are ambiguous: ‘from the evil (one)’ or ‘from evil’.
For discussion of the final line of the prayer, the so-called doxology, see §1.9.
Given that the manuscript has an infinitive, it is better not to speculate on a parti-
cipial structure. Beyond that, the expression *galeiþan in skip gasitan in marein is
a Semitic calque meaning ‘embark’ (Kauffmann 1920: 9, w. lit)
2. ga-juko (f -n-) ‘parable’, with collectivizing ga-1 (§9.13); the literal meaning is prob-
ably something like ‘(things) yoked/paired together’ (§8.19)
sai ‘lo, behold’: historically the imperative of sai an ‘see’, but synchronically an inter-
jection, here rendering Gk. idoú ‘see, behold’ (Lat. ecce ‘id.’). The main function is
an event focus particle (see sai in App.).
sa saiands ‘the sower’: D plus so-called strong form of the PrP is not infrequent (§3.13).
In this instance, however, a mistake is possible. Parallel passages do not have D; cf.
Lk 8:5 urrann saiands du saian. Snædal (2009a: 164) suggests that (i) the marginalia
to the Verona MS [c5/6] may preserve the original wording: sai urrann saian[ds] du
sa[i]an (Homily 22:35) and (ii) the copyist may have started saian with sa, then
copied the whole word saian.
du ‘to’: frequently accompanies infinitives in Gothic to express purpose ‘in order to
(verb)’ (§9.24)
fraiw (n -wa-) ‘seed’ (§2.13): fraiwa is an instrumental dative (§4.44, s.v. saian)
4 Jah warþ, miþþanei saiso, sum raihtis gadraus faur wig, jah qemun fuglos jah
fretun þata.
And it happened, while he sowed, some indeed fell along the way, and birds came
and devoured it.
miþþanei ‘while’: composed of miþ ‘with’ + þan ‘then’ + ei comp ‘that’ = ‘amid this that’;
miþþanei plus pret ind is regular in temporal clauses of attendant circumstance, a
construction very different from the Greek counterpart en tõ(i) + infinitive (Klein
1992a: 351f., 1992b: 8), here en tõ(i) speírein ‘in the sowing’.
raihtis ‘indeed’: adverbial genitive of raihts* ‘straight; right’ (§4.22)
fretun 3pl pret of fra-ïtan* ‘eat up, devour, consume’ (used of animals and greedy
humans) (§5.9 s.v. itan, and fra-ïtan* in App.)
5 Anþar-uþ þan gadraus ana stainahamma, þarei ni habaida airþa managa, jah
suns urrann in þizei ni habaida diupaizos airþos;
And some fell on stony ground, where there was not much earth, and
immediately it sprang up because there was no deep earth;
480 Gothic texts
Anþar-uþ þan [other-and then] ‘and another then’; the h of -uh ‘and’ is assimilated
to the initial consonant of the following word (see -(u)h in App.). With Goth.
sum . . . anþar cf. Eng. some . . . other.
stainahs* ‘stony’ (§8.31): strong inflection in the absence of a noun head: ‘on stony
(ground)’ (cf. Mossé 1956: 170)
þarei (rel adv) ‘where’ (§9.35)
airþa (f -ō-) ‘earth’ (§§3.5, 11.1, App.)
suns (adv) ‘immediately’ (§1.8)
in þizei ‘for this (reason) that’ = þis (gen of sa) + rel ei; cf. in þis ‘for this (reason)’, etc.
(§6.13)
diupaizos airþos (§11.1): partitive genitive ‘because it didn’t have [some] of (the) deep
earth’ in place of the accusative construction in the previous line (ni habaida airþa
managa), probably a calque on Greek tò m ékhein báthos gẽs ‘not having depth of
earth’, since the partitive after ni (esp. ni + haban) was moribund (§4.28)
7 jah sum gadraus in þaurnuns; jah ufarstigun þai þaurnjus jah afƕapidedun
þata, jah akran ni gaf.
And some fell in thorns; and those thorns grew up and choked it, and it did not
give fruit.
8 jah sum gadraus in airþa goda jah gaf akran urrinnando jah wahsjando, jah bar
ain ·l· jah ain ·j· jah ain ·r·
And some fell on good earth and gave fruit springing up and growing, and one bore
30 and one 60 and one 100.
Gudilub: the Gothic deacon who signed the document before three witnesses signing
in Latin. The Latin versions have Gudilebus diaconus, Gudiliuo, Gudeliuus . . . ,
suggesting *Gudi-liub- ‘dear to God’ (Wrede 1891: 142f.; GED 162)
frabauhta-boka [hapax] ‘deed of sale’ <frahauhtaboka>: cpd of boka (f -ō-) ‘document’
(q.v. in App.) plus fra-bauht- ‘sale’ (§7.4) to fra-bugjan ‘sell’ (§5.15) (see -bugjan in App.)
gawaurhta <gaw|aurtha>: ga-waurkjan ‘effect, prepare’ to waurkjan (wk 1) ‘do, work’
(§5.15); Scardigli (1973: 290) interprets gawaurhta as a PPP modifying fra-
bauhtaboka, which is paralleled in the Naples Latin version (line 109): docum[en]
tum ā nōbīs factum suscrībsī ‘I undersigned the document made by us’, but (i) a PPP
*waurhts is otherwise unattested and (ii) the Gothic sentence is ungrammatical
without removing the jah ‘and’ after Kaballarja and reversing the ufmelida and and-
nam clauses, as Scardigli himself acknowledges (p. 293)
. dkn. (written GGS 20) = nom diakon (m -a-) ‘deacon’ (Wulfila uses -u- stem
diakaunus: Ebbinghaus 1982), probably voc diakon in line 2 rather than dative,
as usually assumed, because .dkna. would have been expected for dat diakona
(Grienberger 1900: 55f., Snædal 2002a).
Alamoþs* is a deacon in this passage, mentioned in the Latin text as Alamud. The
name is derived from the noun that occurs in the Naples deed (§10.7)
unkja* (m -n-) [hapax] = Lat. uncia, a Roman plot of ca. 2400 square feet, literally a
‘twelfth’ of a iugerum, the area (240 x 120 ft.) plowable by a yoke (iugum) of oxen in
one day. The area is roughly 9600 square feet.
†hugs [hapax] ‘country estate; agricultural land’ (?): one conjecture is haiþjos ‘of
(open) field’ (Scardigli 1973: 288, 291f.). Most convincing is hūsis ‘of the house’
based on the Latin text of the subscription (Tjäder 1981: 763ff.; Snædal 2009a;
Falluomini 2018b: §6)
Kaballarja: in the Latin version gen fundī . . . Caballariae / Cavallariae, evidently a
landed estate (fundus) in Ostrogothic Italy (Scardigli 1973: 291)
. rlg. = taihuntehund ‘100’ jah þrins tiguns ‘and 3 tens’ (‘30’) jah þrins ‘and 3’
482 Gothic texts
skilliggs* (§8.29) ‘gold piece’ (9x in acc pl; 8x in Arezzo and Naples texts) corresponds
to Lat. solidōs ‘gold coins’ (worth about 25 denarii each)
Note the D-N order þo frabauhtaboka, P-N fram mis, and postposed partitive
genitives fidwor unkjane hūsis*. The indirect object þus leaks around the verb; other-
wise, the document features clause-final verbs.
4 Goth. papa means ‘priest’ here and in bi Werekan papan (Cal 1.7). Gk. pápas in the Eastern Church
designated a priest but in the west was applied to the Bishop of Rome in c6 (Scardigli 1973: 225, 281).
10.8 Skeireins 4.2.16–4.3.24 483
kawtsjo* [only acc kawtsjon, only in these 4 documents] = Lat. per cautiōne(m) ‘by bond,
warranty’, a ‘credit contract’ consisting of a receipt acknowledging the obligation to
repay the balance with interest (Scardigli 1973: 282). For -tsj-, cf. laiktsjo ‘reading’
(1Cor 15:58; 2Cor 1:15, 2:12, 3:4, 4:7, 5:11) vs. laiktjo (38x) in the margin of cod. Ambr.
B to mark the section for recitation = Lat. lēctiō ‘a reading’. Latin assibilation
occurred around the second century (cf. Wollmann 1990: esp. 139–49). Since these
forms were likely borrowed in c5/6, the Ostrogothic forms without assibilation may
be due to scribal conservatism (Corazza 1969: 68f.; Francovich Onesti 2011: 204;
Falluomini 2018b: §5)
(miþ) diakona: formerly read as a compound [with.deacon], a functionary for the
deacon (Scardigli 1973: 282f.), but now as a simple prepositional phrase.
ala-moþ-s*: formerly taken as a name but absent in the Latin text; probably a label for
the negotiating agent: ‘community (al(l)a- ‘all’) spirit (moþs*)’ (Scardigli 1973: 282f.;
GED 24f., 29, 259). Snædal (2002a) argues on syntactic grounds that the phrase
must mean ‘with (the) deacon, our representative’.
ga-hlaiba* (m -n-) [having bread together] ‘companion’ (§7.11): dat pl gahlaibaim:
-aim is characteristic of the adjectival declension (§3.6) and occurs only in these
Ostrogothic documents (signature 3 has -bim, possibly a scribal error: Scardigli
1973: 160); the Gothic Bible has gahlaibam (Jn 11:16) as expected for an -n- stem
(cf. NWG 241) or, if originally a bahuvrihi, the weak form after þaim (Schmeja
1998: 361)
. rk. = taihuntehund jah twans tiguns [hundred and two tens]
wairþ [n -a-] (acc sg) = Lat. pretium ‘price, cost’ (only in the four Naples deeds plus
dat sg wairþa 1Cor 7:23A) (Scardigli 1973: 285; NWG 93)
saiws* (m -i-) ‘(drained) marshland’ (Scardigli 1973: 285; see saiws* in App.); attested
forms: sg dat saiwa, acc (mari)-saiw ‘lake’, pl gen saiwe (GG 98)
‘I, the deacon S., undersigned with my hand, and we received 60 gold pieces, and
previously through a credit contract with the deacon our representative and our
companions we received 120 gold pieces, the price of these recycled swamps.’
7. rodjandan: in þi
zei wistai manna
was: jaþþe weihs
10. jaþþe praufetus
wisands: jag ga
raihtein weitwod
jands: akei us air
þai was jah us waur
15. dahai wistai rodja(n)ds:
Iþ sa us himina qu
mana: jabai in leika
wisan þūhta: akei
ufaro allaim ist.
20. jah þatei gasaƕ
jag gahausida þa
ta weitwodeiþ:
jah þo weitwodida
is ni ainshun nimiþ:
mikildūþs (f -i-) ‘greatness’ (§8.13): attested only in sg nom mikildūþs (Sk 4.2.17) and
gen mikildūþais (Sk 4.2, 7.1)
wulþus (m -u-) ‘splendor, glory’: attested forms: sg nom wulþus (freq.) and wulþaus
(2Cor 8:23A, Phil 3:19A), acc wulþu (freq.) and wulþau (2Cor 3:18B), dat wulþau
(freq.) and wulþu (Lk 9:26), gen wulþaus (freq.)
kannjan (wk 1) ‘make known’ (§§4.51, 5.15)
‘the greatness of the Lord of glory being clear, he proclaimed (it), saying’
wists* (f -i-) ‘essence, nature; entity, being’ (cf. wisan ‘to be’): attested only in dat sg
wistai (8x, 1 dupl), dat pl wistim (Sk 2.4.4), and gen pl wiste (Bl 2v.13 below)
manna (m -n- irreg §3.2) ‘man(kind), human being, person’ (App.)
‘for this reason that by nature he was a human being’
jaþþe (conj) (= jah + þe) ‘and if; whether (. . . or)’ (see jah in App.)
weihs (adj -a-) ‘holy’ (here used substantively, like Lat. sānctus ‘saint’) (see in App.)
10.9 Excerpts from the Bologna fragment 485
ainshun (indf prn §3.27) ‘(not) anyone, no one’, used only with ni- ‘no(t)’ (for indf
-hun, cf. Lat. cum-(que), as in quīcumque ‘whosoever’)
niman (str 4) ‘take, accept, get’ (§5.8)
‘and what he saw and heard, that he bears witness to, and those witnessings of his no
one accepts’
frawardjand ‘they corrupt’. Since both verbs are wk 1, the choices are 3sg pret,
PPP nom sg m wk, or PPP nom/acc pl n. Whatever the details, the meaning
should be something like ‘destroyed or corrupted’.
21. waurkjan (wk 1 §5.15) ‘do, work’; opt waurkjai (§9.37)
nist und ainana = Gk. ouk éstin héōs enós (Ps 14:1, 53:4) [lit. there is not to one]
‘not a single one’
22. us-hneiwan* (str 1) ‘turn away’ (see hneiwan §5.5)
unbrūks* (adj -i-) ‘useless’ (only nom pl unbrūkjai Lk 17:10, Sk 1.1.4f., Bl 1r.22);
cf. brūks ‘useful, profitable, advantageous’ (§4.41)
samana unbrūkjai waurþun ‘together they became useless’ (§3.31, s.v. samana)
23. wailadeþs* (f -i-) ‘benefit; good deed’; previously only gen sg wailadedais (1Tim
6:2A/B)
awiliudon (wk 2 §5.16) ‘give thanks to; thank’ (+dat §4.43)
24f. nasjands allaize manne ‘savior of all men’ (§3.13, end)
25f. þishun þize galaubjandane ‘especially the believers’ (§11.10; cf. FT 22)
kilþei* (f -īn-) ‘womb, uterus’ (§8.27, end); cf. jah sai, ganimis in kilþein jah
gabairis sunu jah haitais namo is Iesu (Lk 1:31) ‘and behold, you will conceive
in (your) womb and bear a son and call his name Jesus’; kilþein can be dat
(FT 37) or acc (Snædal)
ga-niman (str 4) ‘take along (with); acquire, receive; conceive’ (cf. Lk 1:31)
8. ga-bairan (str 4) ‘bring together; give birth to’
haitan (str 7) ‘call, name’
inmanuel (FT enmanuel): a strange transliteration of Gk. Emmanou l (FT 34;
Falluomini 2017: 293)
9. ga-skeirjan (wk1) ‘make clear, explain, interpret’; cf. þatei ist gaskeiriþ: guþ meins
(Mk 15:34) ‘which shall be interpreted “my God” ’ (cf. Falluomini 2014: 304)
10f. fairjan* (wk 1 hapax) ‘remove’, reflexive ‘withdraw’ [lit. may you not remove
yourself from me] (§9.9)
11. anþara managa ‘many other (things)’: can be nom pl n (Schuhmann 2016: 62) or
acc pl n: not ‘do not withdraw yourself and many other things from me’,
which violates the MS punctuation; but object of an understood qaþ ‘he said,
or the like, i.e. ‘et cetera’ makes sense (Carla Falluomini, p.c.)
12. wiljan ‘will, be willing, wish, want’ (§5.30)
skaps* (m -a- hapax) ‘creator’ (Schuhmann 2016: 68f.)
dagands* (m -nd- hapax): a loan translation of EL illūminātor ‘enlightener’, used
of the Holy Spirit (Schuhmann 2016: 66f.); for derivation from the ‘day’ root,
cf. Gmc. *dagai-/-ye/a- ‘to dawn’ in OHG tagēn, ON daga ‘id.’, etc. (ibid.)
13. wists* (f -i-) ‘essence, nature; entity, being’ (cf. wistai in §1.8 above)
digan*, dáig, digum*, (ga)digans (str 1) ‘knead, mold’ (FT 37; Schuhmann
2016: 63f.)
ain arjizuh (indf prn §3.24) ‘each and every one’; sundro ‘apart, individually’
is the usual rendition of Gk. katà mónas ‘one by one, individually’ (Lk 9:18,
Mk 4:10), but cf. Rom 12:5 where ain arjizuh translates kath’ heĩs ‘one by
one’ (F 303)
hairto (n -n-) ‘heart’ (§8.21, App.)
14. fraþjan, froþ, froþun, — (str 6) ‘think, perceive, realize, understand’ (§§5.10,
5.20, App.)
in (P + acc) ‘into; with respect to’
waurstw (all forms attested: sg nom/acc waurstw, gen waurstwis, dat waurstwa,
pl nom/acc waurstwa, gen waurstwe, dat waurstwam): the usual rendering
of Gk. érgon ‘work’, pl érga; cf. Mt 11:2, Rom 13:3 (F 305); FT read waurhta,
from waurhts (PPP of waurkjan ‘work’) ‘wrought’; n ‘thing wrought; work’, but
F’s reading agrees with the Psalm passage.
which is interpreted “God with us”. If he/it is not [or? If there is no5]
God, about whom did the prophet speak? My God, do not abandon
me. And (there are?) many other things. But I did not
want to believe the creator and illuminator of all
entities/beings, who fashioned the hearts for every one of them,
who is knowledgeable with respect to all their works . . . .
5 The sentence is technically ambiguous (cf. Wolfe 2017), but can mean ‘if there is no God’. Compare
qaþ unfroþs in hairtin seinamma · | nist g(u)þ (Bl 2r.18f.) ‘the foolish (man) said in his heart: There is no
god.’ Grammatically, conditionals with jabai are generally verb-final (§§9.49ff.). The violation in jabai nist
guþ might be explained if the sentence is existential.
CH APTER 11
This chapter draws together loose ends and recasts data presented throughout this
work in a grammatical and typological context. The chapter begins with a summary
of constituent structure in several text excerpts in Chapter 10. The linearization of all
phrase and clause types in Gothic is then reviewed. As a logical conclusion, Gothic
structure is compared to the word order typology of the rest of Germanic.
The phrase in (1b) is missing from the Greek text, which ends with speĩrai ‘to sow’.
Luke 8:5 alone includes the object (acc tòn spóron autoũ) in the Greek (Wolfe 2006: 211),
but for (1b) several Vetus Latina MSS, including cod. Brixianus and cod. Vindobonensis,
have ad sēminandum sēmen suum ‘for sowing his seed’ (cf. VL 1970: 27).
When used attributively, adjectives in this selection follow nouns and take strong
inflection (Mossé 1956: 169f.), e.g. in airþa goda [onto earth good] (Mk 4:8) (cf. Gk. eis
tēn gẽn tēn kalēń [onto the earth the good]). There are also Greek N–A calques like
airþa managa = gẽn pollēń [earth much] (Mk 4:5).
Participles generally follow nouns in several different constructions:
(2) akran ur-rinnando jah wahsjando (Mk 4:8)
fruit.acc.sg out-running.acc.sg.n and growing.acc.sg.n
‘fruit springing up and growing’
Num–N N–Num
fidwor unkjane ‘four (of) uncias’ (A) skilliggans .j. ‘sixty shillings’ etc. (N, A)
N–(Poss)Adj Adj-N: none
handau meinai ‘with my hand’ (N)
alamoda unsaramma ‘our representative’ (N)
gahlaib[a]im unsaraim
‘(with) our companions’ (N)
N–Gen Gen–N: none
wairþ þize saiwe ‘the cost of
these marshlands’ (N)
fidwor unkjane husis* ‘four (of)
uncias of the house’ (A)
N–D: none D–N
þo frabauhtaboka ‘this/the salesdeed’ (A)
þize saiwe ‘of these/the marshlands’ (N)
V–O O–V
andnemum skillingans .rk. skilliggans .rlg. andnam
‘we received 120 shillings’ (N) ‘133 shillings I received’ (A)
O–V–IO
þo frabauhtaboka . . . gawaurhta þus
‘this/the salesdeed I prepared . . .
for you’ (A)
1 As expected, Gothic translates the Byzantine main text homoiōsō ́ autón ‘I will liken him’rather than
́
the Alexandrian passive construction homoiōthē setai ‘(he) will be compared (to . . . )’).
502 Linearization and typology
11.6 Pronouns
2 Studies of Gothic linearization include McKnight (1897a), Koppitz (1900, 1901), Cuendet (1929),
Fourquet (1938: ch. 6), Ebel (1978), Longobardi (1978, 1994), Eythórsson (1995, 1996), Ferraresi (1991,
2005), Harbert (2007), Kotin (2012: ch. 4), Ratkus (2011, 2016, 2017b), Falluomini (2018a). A sample of
every sentence type in Luke and Mark can be found in Werth (1965). See also the historical overviews in
Petersen (2016, 2017).
11.6–7 Pronouns and D-words 503
last example is Greek prompted, but mik nasei seems grammatically and pragmat-
ically deviant. Imperatives and wh- questions standardly force the verb to the left
periphery (§11.14).
Sik and other weak pronouns tend to follow the verb because the verb raises
to a position to support the clitic (Eythórsson 1995: 29ff., 34f.; Harbert 2007:
189f.; cf. Kapteijn 1911: 288). When a complementizer is present, OV order can
obtain, e.g. jabai mik frijoþ (Jn 14:15) ‘if you love me’ (Eythórsson 1995: 31; Harbert
2007: 410).
With double object verbs, the order of NPs is rarely fixed. In Mark and Luke, for
instance, indirect objects precede direct 54% of the time (Werth 1965, 1970). Orders
that seem fixed are generally poorly attested, and the order may be an accident of the
limited corpus. For details, see §§4.50–4.54.
11.7 D-words
Ds in Gothic are rare except in the context of the weak adjective (§§3.4, 3.10), where
they likely retain some demonstrative value. In Matthew there are “some 475 Greek
articles which have no equivalents in the Gothic text . . . [versus] some 165 which have
been duly rendered” (Metlen 1933: 534). In Luke 8, the Greek article is translated
some 40x and omitted some 80x (Bernhardt 1874a: 2). Other text samples yield similar
results. In Mt 5, Jn 7, Lk 7, and 1Cor 15, the Greek definite article, often translated
by forms of sa, is omitted 214 times in Gothic (Berard 1993b: 119). Overall Kovari
(1984: 35) counts 1417 Greek articles but only 371 Gothic examples of D + N vs. 992
plain nouns.
Where Gothic Ds occur, they precede the noun directly. They rarely follow, e.g.
gawitais unsis faura kunja þamm[a] (Bl 1r.6) ‘guard us from this generation’. This is
isolated. Elsewhere even in the Bologna fragment þamma and other forms of sa
precede the noun.
The usual exceptions involve (i) an intervening clitic, adverb, or phrase, or (ii) pres-
ence of an adjective, in which case there are several options. An adjective can occur
between D and the noun, as in sa audaga praufetus (Bl 1r.7) ‘the blessed prophet’, or it
can follow the D-noun complex, e.g. in þamma daga ubilin (Eph 6:13A/B) ‘on that evil
day’. Alternatively, the D-adj phrase can precede or follow the noun. It follows the
noun in us leika þamma ainamma (1Cor 12:12A) ‘of that one body’. For details, see
Ratkus (2016).
D can precede both the noun and the adjective, as in waurkjaiþ ni þana mat þana
fralusanan, ak mat þana wisandan du libainai aiweinon (Jn 6:27) ‘work not for the
food that (is) perishable, but for food that endures for life eternal’. Both D-adj
phrases seem appositional, and the Latin versions use a relative clause (VL 1963:
60), but one cannot exclude a calque on the Greek ergázesthe mē tēn brõsin tēn
apolluménēn ‘id.’.
504 Linearization and typology
Gothic has no (even Greek-prompted) postpositions (Cuendet 1929: 153). PPs rarely
admit D-words. Indeed, some present-day Germanic languages still have articleless
PPs (Vilutis 1976: 155). Kovari (1984: 37) counts 573 examples of P + N vs. only 141
with D, in contrast to Greek where articles were normal in PPs. In addition to the
contexts above, Ds in Gothic PPs are often strong demonstratives, e.g. bi þamma
razna jainamma (Mt 7:25) [against that house yon] ‘against that house’ (cf. Vilutis
1976–9; Kotin 2012: 475f.).
The absence of D-words in PPs has eluded explanation (cf. Sternemann 1995:
165ff.). The attempted prosodic account by Hodler (1954: 96) has not found favor
(cf. Vilutis 1979: 44; Sternemann 1995: 166). Scholars have ignored the inverse correlation
with anaphoric binding in PPs (§9.5). A language like English that permits articles
in PPs does not allow anaphors (e.g. Peterx remembered Jesus’y wordz that was spoken
to himx / *himselfx). This suggests that, like names, nouns in PPs were automatically
determined in Gothic.
11.9 Adjectives
Of the 2056 Gothic adjectives in the corpus of Ratkus (2011, 2016), 1635 match the
Greek in function, linearization, and essential content. In 420 instances, the Gothic
text departs from extant Greek versions.
Excluding the Bologna fragment, attributive adjectives occur after the noun 333x,
and precede only 275 (Ratkus 2011: 145). With quantifiers the figures are reversed:
55 QN beside 31 NQ (ibid.). In Skeireins, likewise, there are 7 QN but only 3 NQ
(ibid. 154). Adjectives, however, prefer prenominal position in Skeireins (40 AN :
9 NA), which may have been the default position for attributive adjectives (Ratkus
2011: 165ff.).
In predicative constructions, adjectives precede the verb 285 times and follow in
184 instances (Ratkus 2011: 118f., 145). This is also true of Skeireins with 15 AV vs. 2 VA
(ibid. 151). Quantifiers behave similarly (main corpus): 12 QV beside 3 VQ (ibid. 145).
Deviations from the Greek text suggest that “Gothic prefers to place the (copular)
verb clause-finally” (ibid. 145).
Possessive adjectives preferentially follow the noun (GrGS 292; Cuendet 1929: 42f.).
Ratkus (2017b) counts 1562 matches with the Greek linearization vs. only 29 (nonproba-
tive) deviations. Where the Gothic text is nothing like any extant Greek or Latin version,
there are 14 examples of postnominal possessives vs. one Poss-N (ni sokja izwaros
áihtins, ak izwis (2Cor 12:14A/B) ‘I do not seek your property, but you’). Skeireins has
20 N-Poss vs. 11 Poss-N, the Bologna fragment has 19 N-Poss and 2 Poss-N, and the
deeds 12 N-Poss, 0 Poss-N—nothing unequivocal. But even in calques native Gothic
order can emerge, e.g. so armahairtiþa þeina (Mt 6:4) ‘your charitable deed’, rendering
sou hē [~ hē sou] eleēmosúnē, literally ‘your the [~ the your] charitable deed’.
11.9–10 Adjectives and genitives 505
The Bologna fragment regularly observes postnominal order, e.g. f(rauj)a g(u)þ
unsar (Bl 1r.1) ‘lord, our God’, naseins meina jah wulþus meins (Bl 1v.18) ‘my salvation
and and my glory’, awi|liudo g(u)þa [= guda] meinamma (Bl 1r.23f.) ‘I (will) thank my
God’, ana managein þeinai | [þi]uþeins þeina (Bl 1v.19f.) ‘among your people (is) your
blessing’, in hauhairteins sein[a]izos (Bl 2r.13) ‘on account of his deceit’, in hairtin
seinamma (Bl 2r.18) ‘in his heart’, etc.
Possible orders are N–Poss–D, D–Poss–N, D–N–Poss. Poss–D–N occurs only when a
weak adjective follows.
11.10 Genitives
The default position for genitives is postnominal (GrGS 291). Exceptions, even in the
absence of a Greek prompt (Koppitz 1900: 435–8; Lenk 1910: 271; Kapteijn 1911: 285;
Cuendet 1929: 12; Fourquet 1938: 243ff.), have misled some (e.g. Harczyk 1898: 243f.)
into claiming that the default is prenominal.
Partitive genitives are nearly always postposed. Rare exceptions occur, such as
manageins filu (Mk 4:1) ‘much of a multitude, a large crowd’ (§11.1), and eilo oh
(1Cor 15:30A) ‘every hour’, possibly motivated by the following daga ammeh
(1Cor 15:31A) ‘each day’ (Kapteijn 1911: 285). Behaghel (1930: 44) cites 6 examples
like this.
In (4), the subjective genitive is extracted from its DP and moved to a focus position,
as indicated also by the manuscript punctuation after f(rauj)ins.
(4) iþ f(rauj)ins· at afleta | frawaurhte (Sk 3.3.19f.)
‘but lord.gen.sg at forgiveness sin.gen.pl
‘but at (accompanying) the Lord’s forgiveness of sins’ (cf. §4.23)
In (6), the main difference between the Greek text and the Gothic is that Gothic ignores
the first kaì ‘and’ in the Byzantine main text and thus aligns with the Alexandrian
manuscript tradition and the Latin versions which also omit the conjunction.
Postposed genitives are retained in the Bologna fragment, e.g. in allaim wailadede
is (Bl 1r.23) ‘in all of his good deeds’, ganasjiþ managein seina af frawaurhtim ize
(Bl 1r.26–Bl 1v.1) ‘he (will) save his people from the sins of them’, [n]asjands allaiz[e]
manne þishun þize ga[l]aub|jandane · (Bl 1r.24ff.) ‘savior of all people, especially the
believers’ (= 1Tim 4:10B minus þize), saei daig ain arjammeh hairtona ize (Bl 2v.13)
‘who moulded for everyone their hearts’, in wast|jom lambe (Bl 2v.16f.) ‘in the clothes
of sheep’. Predicative genitives are of course different, e.g. f(rauj)ins ist naseins (Bl 1v.19)
‘the Lord’s is salvation’.
Genitives are automatically determined and, unlike Greek, do not occur with a
D-word (GrGS 167; Masuda 1979: 99) unless the D is an emphatic demonstrative or
old information, e.g. sa gards fulls warþ daunais þizos salbonais (Jn 12:3) ‘the house
became full of the odor of that (previously mentioned) ointment’ (cf. Hodler 1954: 84f.).
In the Greek Gospels a numeral precedes a noun 212x and follows 85x. Gothic usually
follows suit (Cuendet 1929: 142ff.). Some (especially preposed) numerals behave as
quantifiers (Harbert 2007: 138f.); cf. fidwor unkjane ‘four (of) uncias’ in the Arezzo
landsale deed beside skilliggans .j. ‘sixty shillings’ in the debt-settlement deed
(Signature 2), fiskos twai (Lk 9:13) ‘two fish’ (ungrammatical after maizo fimf hlaibam
jah ‘more than 5 loaves [dat pl] and’; cf. Kirchner 1879: 6), etc. For the opposite order,
cf. du jainaim | þrim magum (Bl 2v.23f.) ‘to those three boys’, dage fidwor tiguns
[of days four tens] ‘forty days’ (Lk 4:2), .e. hlaibans ‘five loaves’ (Sk 7.1.10).
Some numerals precede the noun when uninflected and follow when inflected
(Harbert 2007: 139), e.g. gen pl twalibe follows 2x (otherwise þize twalibe 3x ‘of the
twelve’), and dat pl twalif precedes at Mt 11:1. In all of its occurrences, the inflected
dative is þaim twalibim (3x) ‘to/with the twelve’. This distributional tendency breaks
down with nom/acc twalif, which follows 3x and precedes 2x.
All- ‘all’ can modify a noun directly (cf. Koppitz 1900: 455f.), but the partitive struc-
ture is frequent, e.g. all bagme ‘all of trees’ (gen pl), different from Gk. pãn déndron
(Mt 7:19) ‘every tree’ (nom sg) or omnis (…) arbor ‘id.’ in the Latin versions (cf. VL
1972: 38). All dagis (Rom 8:36A) [all of day] ‘all day long’ renders Gk. hólēn tē n
hēmérān ‘the entire day’ (cf. Lat. tōtā diē ‘id.’).
11.12 Particles
Gothic has two classes of so-called particles. Verbal particles and prepositions (P-words,
see Ch. 6) alter the meaning or (lexical) aspect of verbs. Sentence discourse particles
11.12 Particles 507
These different linearizations relate also to the fact that there two entirely different
functions of nu (q.v. in App.), which are associated with different orders.
́ Lat. itaque ‘and
Þannu (23x, 2 dupl) ‘and so, therefore, then’ often renders Gk. hōste,
so, therefore’. It is rare in the Gospels (Mt 7:20, Mk 4:41, 14:6) and indicates a strong
sequel or conclusion, or an impatient question. It is clause-initial except with negative
focus (e.g. ni ainhun þannu 2Cor 6:3B ‘nothing at all then’), or an interrogative word:
as þannu sa sijai (Mk 4:41) ‘who then can this be?’. Þannu is followed by nu 10x
(1 dupl) ‘therefore’; cf. (8).
(8) a) þannu nu, broþrjus, ni sijum þiujos barna (Gal 4:31B)
therefore brothers neg be.1pl slave.gen.sg.f child.nom.pl
‘therefore, brethren, we are not children of a slave woman’
b) ni waiht þannu nu wargiþos þaim in
neg thing therefore now condemnation.gen they.dat in
Xristau (Rom 8:1A)
Christ
‘there is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ’
In (8a), nu reinforces þannu and both together render Gk. ára ‘therefore’, but in (8b)
þannu translates ára and nu renders Gk. nũn ‘now’ (details in Schaaffs 1904: 69ff.).
Snædal classifies both as 2.nu, but the tradition (e.g. Marold 1881b: 7) took nu in (8b)
to be temporal (Snædal’s 1.nu).
Auk ‘for’ as a modality particle favors second place, e.g. was auk laisjands ins
(Mt 7:29) ‘for he was teaching them’. It occupies third place after other particles, e.g.
nih þan auk (Jn 8:42) ‘for not then’, and after short phrases, such as ohta mis auk þuk
(Lk 19:21) ‘for I feared you’, himma daga auk (Lk 19:5) ‘for today’, in-uþ þis auk (Rom
13:6A) ‘for also on account of this’, etc. Positional variation occurs in ni wiljau auk
(1Cor 16:7A/B, 10:20A) ‘for I do not want’ beside ni auk wiljau (Rom 11:25A) ‘id.’.
Auk is fourth in inu idreiga sind auk gibos (Rom 11:29A) ‘for without repentance are
the gifts’.
Auxiliaries follow verbs in native Gothic (GrGS 292; Douse 1886: 267; Cebulla 1910;
Streitberg 1920: 208, w. lit; Fourquet 1938: 252ff.). Cebulla (1910: 3), Pollak (1964: 34ff.),
and Pagliarulo (2006) find that translation of a Greek periphrastic structure of any
kind prompts the same linearization, e.g. ist gameliþ (Jn 6:31 etc.) ‘is (has been)
written’ (Gk. estin gegramménon, was gamelid (Jn 12:16) ‘was (has been) written’
(ẽn gegramménon), was kunþs (Jn 18:15) ‘was known’ (ẽn gnōstós), waurþun niuja
(2Cor 5:17A/B) ‘(all things) became new’ (gégonen kainá), etc. By sharp contrast, with
only two exceptions out of 62 instances in Pagliarulo’s sample, Gothic has final verbs
or auxiliaries to render a Greek synthetic construct, as in qiþan ist (Mt 5:27) ‘is said’
11.13 Verbs and auxiliaries 509
(Gk. erréthē), gasuliþ was (Mt 7:25) ‘was founded’ (tethemelíōto), gabaurans was
(Gal 4:23B) ‘he was born’ (gegénnētai), frawaurpans wesi (Mk 9:42) ‘(if) he were
thrown’ (béblētai), galagiþs wesi (Mk 15:47) ‘(where) he was laid’ (títhetai), ussatida
sind (Col 1:17A/B) ‘(all things) hold together’ (sunéstēken), galaþoþs wast (1Cor 7:21A)
́
‘you were called’ (eklē thēs).
In the Gothic corpus available to Cebulla (1910), there are 322 instances of V Aux
plus 7 more in Skeireins that translate a Greek synthetic passive (all then-known
examples are recorded in Skladny 1873: 8–11). The five instances of Aux V order ren-
dering a Greek synthetic passive are all negated, e.g. nist gaþiwaids broþar (1Cor 7:15A)
‘a brother is not bound’ (Gk. dedoúlōtai). Cebulla (pp. 4–8) notes the correlation with
the order in the Vet. Lat. MSS and with negation, but attributes the negated order to
Latin.3 The major exception to ni Aux V occurs with the preterite presents (ni) skuld
ist, (ni) maht ist (§5.29), which behave like ni kar’ist ‘there is no care’ (§4.10), ni batizo
ist (2Cor 12:1B) ‘it is not better’, etc. (Kapteijn 1911: 291). Absence of *nist maht and the
like suggests that auxiliaries were accented differently from the copula in these con-
structions. In both types auk is postposed, e.g. batizo ist auk þus (Mt 5:29, 30) ‘for it is
better for you’, gameliþ ist auk ‘for it is written’ (see auk in App.).
Cebulla counts 35 examples of a Greek periphrastic passive with Aux V order
rendered the same in Gothic, and only one with the native Gothic order: ni
nauhþa|nuh galagiþs was (Sk 3.1.4f.) ‘he was not yet put’ = Gk. oúpō gàr ẽn beblēménos
(Jn 3:24) ‘he (John) had not yet been cast (into prison)’, but there is no guarantee
that the unpreserved Vorlage of Skeireins did not have the order beblēménos ẽn
(cf. Falluomini 2016a: 287). All twelve instances of a Greek V Aux passive are unsur-
prisingly rendered the same in Gothic (Cebulla 1910: 4). Passive infinitives are also
rendered by PPP + wisan/wairþan (ibid. 8f.). The auxiliary ‘be(come)’ is never omit-
ted (Meillet 1908–9: 94).
To the examples above additions from the new texts can be cited: gameliþ | ist
(Bl 2r.9f.) ‘is written’, trudan warþ . . . fra[t]rudan warþ . . . usquman warþ . . . gamaurþiþ
warþ (Bl 1r.17ff.) ‘was trodden . . . was trodden upon . . . was killed . . . was murdered’
(§4.43), inmaidiþs | warþ (Bl 2v.25f.) ‘was changed’. The exception ist gaskeiriþ
(Bl 2v.9) ‘is clarified’ is a Greek calque that occurs 3x in Biblical Gothic (Mk 5:41,
15:22, 15:34).
When a PrP + Aux translates a nonperiphrastic Greek verb, the Gothic order is PrP
Aux (Cebulla 1910: 12f.), e.g. gamunandans sijuþ (1Cor 11:2A) [you are remembering]
‘you remember’ (Gk. mémnēsthe) (cf. Pollak 1929: 5). As noted by Cebulla, exceptions
have a particle or negation that attracts the verb, e.g. unte ni sijum unwitandans
munins is (2Cor 2:11A/B) ‘for we are not unknowing of his schemes’ (Gk. ou gàr autoũ
́
tà noē mata agnooũmen).
The generalization that inflected verb forms are postposed extends to phrases
like hrain warþ (Mt 8:3) ‘got clean’ (Gk. ekatharísthē), faurhtai waurþun (Mk 10:32)
3 Yet on p. 12 Cebulla concedes in connection with Aux PrP order that “die Negation (hat) das Verb an
sich gezogen” [negation attracted the verb to itself].
510 Linearization and typology
‘became afraid’ (ephoboũnto), naqadai waurþun (1Tim 1:19A/B) ‘they became naked’,4
hailai sijaina (Tit 1:13) ‘(that) they may be sound’ (hugiaínōsin), like Lat. sānī sint
(Marold 1883: 71f.), and even blinds gabaurans warþ (Jn 9:2, 20) ‘he was born blind’
(tuphlòs gennēthẽi, tuphlòs egennēthē) ́ (Douse 1886: 268; Eythórsson 1995: 20ff.;
1996: 109).
Imperatives translated with an optative and complement behave the same, e.g.
barniskai sijaiþ (1Cor 14:20A) ‘be childlike’ (Gk. nēpiázete), andaþāhts sijais (2Tim
4:5A/B) ‘be clearthinking’ (Gk. nẽphe), etc. (Rousseau 2012: 298). For Gk. eirēneúete
‘live peaceably!’ Gothic has gawairþeigai sijaiþ (Mk 9:50) ‘be peaceful’ (§8.39) and
gawairþi taujandans sijaiþ (2Cor 13:11A/B) [be making peace], which corresponds
to the morphological composition of Lat. pācificī estōte ‘be peacemaking’ in 3 MSS
(Marold 1882: 57f.).
While this is a trait of V-final languages, the verb need not end the sentence; cf.
let faurþis sada wairþan barna (Mk 7:27) ‘first let the children become filled/sated’
for Gk. áphes prõton khortasthẽnai tà tékna ‘id.’ (barna / tékna ‘children’ share the
same slot).
In most Biblical Gothic passages the verb precedes its direct object (i) by Greek
prompting, (ii) by raising of the verb to a position in the left periphery, and (iii) with
heavy complements (Eythórsson 1995: 28f.). When a verb and its complement
translate a single Greek verb, the complement precedes the verb in Gothic (Eythórsson
1995: 20f.). In Skeireins, one normal position of the finite verb, especially in subordinate
and conjoined clauses, is final and marked with a manuscript colon (Dewey 2006:
97, 99). Participles likewise tend to be clause final (ibid. 101). Verb-final order pre-
dominates for relative clauses not translated from Greek (Streitberg 1920: 208, w. lit;
Eythórsson 1996: 109).
The auxiliary can be a sentence-initial host for Wackernagel clitics (§11.12). The
example in (9) could have been native Gothic syntax but is impossible to prove
because it follows the pattern of Greek periphrastic formations.
(9) was-uþ þan Iohannes ga-wasiþs taglam ulbandaus (Mk 1:6)
was-and then John prfx-dressed hair.dat.pl camel.gen.sg
‘and (then) John was dressed in camel’s hair [clothes]’
[Gk. ẽn dè ho Iōánnēs endeduménos tríkhas kam lou
was and/but the John dressed hair.acc.pl camel.gen.sg]
4 This is the metaphorical rendering of Gk. enauagēsan ‘they suffered shipwreck, were shipwrecked’,
Lat. naufragī factī sunt ‘id.’, itself a metaphor for losing everything (faith is contextually at issue). The
Ambrosiaster commentary on Paul’s letters in effect explains the metaphor: naufragī factī sunt, id est nūdī
vēritāte aut prīvātī vītā; quid est enim vēritās nisi vīta? ‘they were shipwrecked, i.e. naked with respect to
truth or deprived of life; for what is truth if not life?’It is possible that naqadai waurþun was originally an
interpretive gloss that got incorporated into the text (Alcamesi 2009: 21f.). Nonmetaphorical enauagēsa
‘I suffered shipwreck’is rendered usfarþon gatawida us skipa (2Cor 11:25B), lit. ‘I made an exit from the
ship’ (Høst 1949: 411f.; EbgW 35; NWG 360). Snædal takes the nom sg to be usfarþo*. Høst and Casaretto
argue for a verbal abstract us-farþons*.
11.14 V1 and V2 511
The sequence of clitics (-uh, þan) hosted by was is frequent (was-uh þan 17x ~
was-uþ-þan 5x) and genuine Gothic (Grewolds 1932; Ivanov 1999; Ferraresi 2005: ch. 4).
In all, -uh and þan co-occur 123x in the Gospels, 97x translating Gk. dé ‘and, but’
(Klein 1994, 2018a; cf. Fuß 2003: 202). Half of those have discourse-continuative fore-
grounding value and the other half mark backgrounded statements (Klein 2018a; cf.
Buzzoni 2009: 56f.), as in (9) above.5 In over a dozen passages -uh þan has no cor-
respondent in the Greek text. In (10), -uþ þan auk renders a simple Gk. dé.
(10) munaidedun - uþ þan auk þai auhumistans gudjans (Jn 12:10)
plot.3pl.pret and then for D.nom.pl highest priests
‘for then the highest priests took counsel’
[Gk. ebouleúsanto dè hoi arkhiereĩs ‘and/but the chief priests consulted’]
11.14 V1 and V2
Certain functional items force movement of the verb to the left periphery (Longobardi
1994; Eythórsson 1995, 1996; Ferraresi 1991, 2005; Fuß 2003; Harbert 2007: 410–15;
Buzzoni 2009). In addition, verb-fronting in Gothic and the rest of Germanic can
depend on discourse pragmatic and intonational factors and emphasis (Dewey 2006).
Some syntactic affixes are associated with the complementizer position and force a
clause-initial host, which can be any lexical category.
Interrogative -u
For interrogative -u, cf. maguts-u driggkan (Mk 10:38) ‘can you two drink?’ (Eythórsson
1995: 104; Ferraresi 2005: 148ff.; Pagliarulo 2011b). The host category is a verb 15x
(2 dupl), a member of every other category 23x. Some of these, like (11), are embedded
questions in which the host is leftmost in the subordinate clause, differing markedly
from the Greek order (Eythórsson 1995: 105–11; Harbert 2007: 402).
(11) witaidedun imma hailidedi – u sabbato
watch.3pl.pret he.dat heal.3sg.pret.opt-Q sabbath (§4.21)
daga (Mk 3:2)
day.dat
‘they watched him (to see) whether he would heal (him) on the Sabbath day’
[Gk. paret roun autòn ei toĩs sábbasin therapeúsei autón
watched him if the sabbath heal.3sg.fut him]
but behaves like -u in forcing movement to the left periphery (Eythórsson 1995: 52ff.),
e.g. iddjedun-uh ufar marein (Jn 6:17) ‘and they went over the sea’ (ibid. 49). Also like
-u, when the moved verb is prefixed, -uh forces tmesis of the prefix and verb, as in
an-uþ-þan-niujaiþ (Eph 4:23A/B) ‘and then renew’ (Grewolds 1932: 3–6).
The only exception involves focus of a definite subject, as in (12). The subject must
be overt and the verbal host of -uh is not clause-initial (Sturtevant 1933c: 349ff.;
Scherer 1968: 38f.; Klein & Condon 1993: 13ff.; Eythórsson 1995: 56–63; Ferraresi 2005:
160f.). In 13 examples (out of 15) the verb is repeated (Klein 2018a). Since (i) -uh
preferentially attaches to a verb, (ii) -uh never attaches to iþ, and (iii) is behaves like a
noun in not allowing -uh to attach to any form of it, it is probably not accidental that
the formula for focus is iþ is/N V-uh.
(12) iþ is qaþ-uh du im (Lk 20:25)
and he said-and to they.dat
‘and he said to them’
[Gk. ho dè eĩpen autoĩs ‘id.’]
This construction is attested only in the Gospels, less Matthew: iþ is qaþ-uh (Mk 14:62;
Lk 18:21, 29, 20:25; Jn 9:17, 38) ‘and he said’, iþ Iesus qaþ-uh (Mk 10:38, 39) ‘but Jesus
said’, iþ Filippus qaþ-uh (Jn 14:8) ‘then Philip said’, iþ eis qeþun-uh (Jn 18:31) ‘but they
said’. Two nondeclarative verbs occur: iþ is wiss-uh (Lk 6:8) ‘but he knew’, iþ Iesus
wiss-uh (Jn 16:19) ‘Jesus knew’, iþ Iesus iddj-uh (Lk 7:6) ‘and Jesus went’. Two verbs
have a particle that hosts -uh: iþ is ub-uh-wopida (Lk 18:38) ‘and he cried out’, iþ Iesus
uz-uh-hof (Jn 11:41) ‘and Jesus lifted up (his eyes)’. This construction occurs only in
Mark, Luke, and John, but Mark uses only qaþ-uh. The simpler iþ is qaþ (16x) ‘and he
said’ occurs in the same three Gospels, but iþ Iesus qaþ (10x) ‘and Jesus said’ is found
in Matthew (8:22, 27:11).
Subject focus thus has several peculiarities.6 The host of -uh must be a verb (13x) or
particle (2x) adjoined to a verb. The verb is invariably in the preterite and with one
exception monosyllabic. Only three verbs do not involve sound production.
Based on the position of -uh in this construction, Buzzoni (2009: 54) locates it
between Topic/Focus Phrase and Fin(ite) Phrase.
Contrary to the idea of an antevocalic protective -h (Sturtevant 1950: 86f.), a similar
construction, but with aþþan and predicate raising, seems attested in (13).
(13) aþþan snau – h ana ins hatis gudis (1Thess 2:16B)
but came.quickly-and upon them wrath god.gen
‘but there came quickly upon them the wrath of God’
[Gk. éphthasen dè ep’ autoùs hē orgē (phthánō ‘catch quickly, overtake’)]
6 Only definite subjects can move to Topic/Focus. The specific indefinites sums ‘some, a certain’, anþar
‘other, second’ can appear as clause-initial subjects, e.g. sumai-h qeþun (Jn 7:12) ‘and some said’, anþar-uh
þan siponje (Mt 8:21) ‘and another of his disciples’. Indefinite subjects occupy a lower position (Ferraresi
2005: 161f.).
11.14 V1 and V2 513
Imperatives
In imperatives, and less regularly their optative substitutes (§11.13), the verb raises
to first place unless a conjunction is present, e.g. bairgais un|sis jah gawitais unsis
(Bl 1r.5f.) ‘protect us and guard us’, nasei unsis (Mt 8:25, Bl 1r.1, 1v.23) ‘save us’, nasei
mik (Jn 12:27, Bl 1r.9f., 11, 1v.7f.) ‘save me’, but note the strange exception mik nasei
(Bl 1v.17) ‘id.’. Contrast the imperative (14a) with the preterite (14b) (Douse 1886: 268;
McKnight 1897a: 149; Streitberg 1920: 208; Longobardi 1994; Eythórsson 1995: 22f.).
(14) a) wairþ hrains (Mt 8:3, Mk 1:41, Lk 5:13)
‘get clean’
[Gk. katharísthēti ‘id.’]
b) hrains warþ (Mk 1:42, Lk 17:15)
‘got clean’
[Gk. ekatharísthē, v.l. for iáthē ‘was healed’ at Lk 17:15]
wh- questions
In wh- questions, the verb moves to second position, as in (15a, b) (Eythórsson 1995:
25; Harbert 2007: 406; Walkden 2014 [2012]: 114f.).
(15) a) ƕas gataih þus þata namo ƕas | gakannida þus (Bl 2r.23f.)
‘who told you the name? who revealed (the name) to you?’
b) ƕa skuli þata barn wairþan (Lk 1:66)
what should.3sg.opt D.nom.sg.n child.nom.sg.n become.inf
‘what is this child destined to be?’ (tr. Klein 1992a: 365)
[Gk. tí ára tò paidíon toũto éstai
what then the child this be.3sg.fut]
Skuli renders Gk. éstai ‘shall be’ (§5.24). While the rhetorical effect borders on
predestination (Marold 1875: 173; Cebulla 1910: 16f.), a dubitative-potential nuance is
imparted by the optative (Ambrosini 1965: 91; cf. Meerwein 1977: 26).
Violations of V2 with wh- questions are Greek-prompted (Fuß 2003: 200–5),
e.g. as mik lauseiþ (Rom 7:24A, Bl 1r.14f.) ‘who will release me?’ (Gk tís me rhūsetai).
For this and other issues involving interrogatives, see Walkden (2014: 116–56).
Expansion of V2
In purpose, result, and causal clauses in the Gospels, the verb immediately follows the
complementizer 289x vs. 134 occurrences of other orders (Pennington 2010: 359).
There is additional evidence for the expansion of V2 from the Bologna fragment
with focus of galeiks ‘like’ (1x) and swaleiks ‘such’ (2x) (Falluomini 2018a); cf. (16a, b).
(16) a) galeiks was diabulau sa | afguda farao (Bl 2v.19f.)
‘like the devil was the ungodly pharaoh’
b) swaleiks was jah sa unselja Na|bukaudaunausaur (Bl 2v.22f.)
‘such was also the wicked Nebuchadnezzar’
514 Linearization and typology
A margin gloss in Gotica Veronensia exhibits V2, different from the V-final
Latin:
(17) us ·z· hlaibam gasoþida manageins (Ver 24:39, f. 39r, Homily 24)
‘out of 7 loaves (he) satiated the many’
[Lat. dē septem pānibus populum saturāverit] (Falluomini 2018a)
To conclude this section, because Gothic is still V-final in many structures (§§11.12f.),
a typological shift toward V2 is in progress to the extent that 73% of the sentences in
Mark and Luke are V2 (Werth 1965, 1970). This is the beginning of a change that was
carried out in varying degrees in the rest of Germanic.
11.15 Negation
The most complete modern works on negation in Gothic are by Danielsen (1968),
Coombs (1976), and Rousseau (2016: 507–37). In contrast to the modern Germanic
languages, which developed a split between sentence and constituent negators,
Gothic ni is used in all syntactic contexts. It is a generic negator, used with indicative,
optative, imperative, and infinitive (cf. Klein 2011: 137f.). Despite Greek prompts,
there is little emphatic or pleonastic negation with repetitions of ni (cf. Kapteijn
1911: 303).
un-
In word formation, prefixal un- is used with words of nonverbal lexical categories.
It freely combines with adjectives (Johansson 1904: 365f.; Grewolds 1934: 158–69;
Benveniste 1961: 33), sometimes opposed to a ga- adjective (Rousseau 2016: 418), but
not with quantifiers. Thus, negated managans is ni managans (Lk 15:13) ‘not many’
(cf. fawans ‘few’), not *unmanag-. Un- less often combines with nouns, e.g. Goth.
un-beistei* (1Cor 5:8A) ‘unleavenedness’ (§8.5), un-bimait* (dat sg unbimaita Col
2:13B) ‘uncircumcision’, in un-þiudom (Rom 10:19A) ‘among non-nations’, un-lustus*
[nondesire] ‘discouragement’ (§8.11) = OE un-lust ‘absence of desire, disinclination;
listlessness; depraved pleasure’, OHG un-lust ‘reluctance, unwillingness; aversion,
revulsion; depraved pleasure’ (Wilmanns 1896: 560ff.). Both are combined in Dolcetti
Corazza (1997: 64–70).
Verbs with un- are generally derived, e.g. un-þiuþjan* [un-bless] ‘curse’ from
un-þiuþ (acc) [un-good] ‘bad, evil’, but in its only occurrence is parallel to þiuþjan*
(19x, 1 dupl) ‘bless’: þiuþjaiþ jah ni unþiuþjaiþ (Rom 12:14A) ‘bless and do not curse
(them)’ (GrGS 208; Grünwald 1910: 38f.; Rousseau 2016: 418). Un-sweran* ‘dishonor’
(jūs unswairaiþ mik Jn 8:49 ‘you dishonor me’) is usually derived from un-swers
‘without honor, dishonored’, but since wk 1 *un-swerjan should be expected, the
derivation may be by direct opposition to (ga)sweran* ‘honor’ (Rousseau 2012: 132;
2016: 417f.).
11.15 Negation 515
Unwitandans (for Greek finite agnooũmen ‘we do not know’) is thus syntactically no
different from ni witands (Lk 9:33) ‘not knowing’, and unbairands* (Gk. mē phéron
karpón ‘not bearing fruit’) is no different from the probably accidentally nonoccur-
ring ni bairands ‘not bearing’.
Based on the different root vocalism of unagands (1Cor 16:10B, <unagans> A;
nom pl m unagandans Phil 1:14B) ‘unfearing’, rendering Gk. aphóbōs ‘fearlessly’
(Gering 1874: 306), and ni ogands (Lk 18:2) ‘not fearing’, Schulze (1927: 134) concludes
that the un- formation is older. While ogands is the productive type, this does not
explain how un- is licensed. Given the existence of transitive adjectives in other
Germanic languages (Maling 1983; Vincent & Börjars 2010), it is possible that con-
version of a PrP to an adjective in Gothic did not block inheritance of an object
case feature.
When an adverb is present the participial negator is ni (Coombs 1976: 45), e.g.
ni hauhaba hugjandans (Rom 12:16A) ‘not thinking haughtily’.
ni
Gothic ni is a generic negator. It is used in all syntactic contexts, with all tenses and
moods, for constitutent as well as sentential negation.
Constituent negation is illustrated by Iudas, ni sa Iskarjotes (Jn 14:22) ‘Judas, not the
Iscariot’, jū ni ik waurkja ita (Rom 7:20A) ‘henceforth (it is) not I (who) do it’, ni | ibna
nih galeiks (Sk 1.1.12f.) ‘neither equal to nor like’ (cf. GrGS 208).
516 Linearization and typology
With sentential negation, the unmarked position of the verb is adjacent to ni and to
the left of verbal dependents (GrGS 207; Douse 1886: 268; Streitberg 1920: 208, w. lit;
Masuda 1978: Eythórsson 1995: 24; Harbert 2007: 394f., 407):
(21) ni gabauiþ in midjamma garda | meinamma taujands
neg dwells in middle house my doing
hauhairtein (Bl 2r.14f.)
deceit
‘he will not dwell within my house practicing deceit’ (§6.31)
The Greek negative command mē ́ plus impv krī nete ́ is translated with an optative, as
often (§9.57). Reinforcement by ei amounts to an (implied) embedded command, and
the neg-V complex is sentence-final (cf. Kapteijn 1911: 291, 329).
Even in subordinate clauses, ni and the verb can raise above a subject, e.g. qaþ þatei
ni sijai | g(u)þ (Bl 2r.16f.) ‘said that there is no god’. Verb movement here is probably
due to the predication of existence.
Generally speaking, only a pronoun, clitic, or adverb can separate ni from the verb
(GrGS 207; Koppitz 1901: 15–23; Mourek 1903: 15; Coombs 1976: 45ff.). Some of the
examples involve constituent negation, as in (24), a citation from Jn 3:24 (Marold
1892: 71f.; Falluomini 2016a: 287).
(24) ni nauhþa|nuh ga-lagiþs was | in karkarai
neg yet prfx-laid.nom.sg.m was in prison
iohan|nes (Sk 3.1.4–7)
John
‘not yet had John been cast into prison’
Ni and the verb form a tight constituent and are never separated in the Bologna
fragment. While ni im ‘I am not’ occurs 21x (never in cod. Bon.), *ni ist obligatorily
11.15 Negation 517
apocopates to nist ‘is not’,7 which is frequent in Biblical Gothic and cod. Bon.
(e.g. Bl 1r.11, 21 [2x], 1v.3, 6, 2r.19). It is S-initial unless a conjunction or comple-
mentizer is present; cf. nist g(u)þ (Bl 2r.19) ‘there is no god’, jabai nist g(u)þ (Bl 2r.23,
25, 2v.6, 9f.) ‘if there is no god’ (or ‘if he is not God’?).
Double negation
In double negation, one ni negates the verb/clause and the other is constituent
negation, e.g. jah sa motareis fairraþro standands ni wilda nih augona seina ushafjan
du himina, ak sloh in brusts seinos (Lk 18:13) ‘and the tax-collector, standing far off,
was not willing (not) even to raise his eyes to heaven, but beat on his breast’, rendering
́
Gk. ouk ēthelen oudé ‘was not willing not even’.
The examples involving waihts ‘thing’ may represent the beginning of negative
concord (on which see Van Gelderen 2011: 302–5; 2016; Willis et al. 2013), e.g. ni
beduþ ni waihtais (Jn 16:24) ‘you have asked nothing’ (§3.27), niu andhafjis ni waiht
(Mk 15:4) ‘do you answer nothing?’ beside niu andhafjis waiht (Mk 14:60) ‘do you
not answer anything?’ (cf. GrGS 209; Streitberg 1981: 62; Mossé 1956: 189; Feuillet
2014: 40). The sequence ni waiht, for instance, occurs 35x (12 dupl), but only 5
have double ni. Rousseau (2012: 186f.; 2016: 515ff.) relates the rare doubling to
P-copy (§6.43), which is failure to delete a remnant, not an Agree relation with
another head.
Apart from a few specific contexts, multiple negatives are semantically realized,
e.g. ni þatei ni habaidedeima waldufni (2Thess 3:9A/B) ‘(it was) not that we did not
have the power/right’, ni wiljau izwis unwitans (1Cor 10:1A) ‘I do not want you
unknowing’, ni swaswe ni habai (2Cor 8:12A/B) ‘not by (what) he doesn’t have’
(see swaswe in App.).
See also §3.27 on negative polarity and §6.43 on negative adjunction.
nei
Negative nei occurs only twice, both in rhetorical questions. One is nei auk þūhtedi
(Sk 1.3.11) ‘for then would he not seem?’. The other is (25).
(25) ƕaiwa nei mais andbahti ahmins wairþai in wulþau
how neg more service spirit.gen
become.3sg.opt in glory
‘how shall the ministry of the spirit not be more in glory?’ (2Cor 3:8A/B)
Nei in (25) translates Gk. oukhí (emphatic form of neg ou), and the linearization
follows the Greek and Latin versions. The optative is dubitative (Kapteijn 1911: 322;
cf. §9.54).
7 Apart from nibai (if ni ibai; see in App.), apocope is restricted to nist. Contrast ni im, ni is (Jn 19:12)
‘you are not’, ni ik (5x) ‘not I’, bi izwis (10x, 4 dupl) ‘about you’, etc. What specifically licenses contraction
in nist must be the special crosslinguistic status of third person verb forms (Miller 2010: i. 196ff., w. lit).
Nist as a reflex of *né h1es-ti (LIPP 2.542) accounts only for the existential sense ‘there is no(t)’. Labeling it
an inflected negative (Rousseau 2012: 183f.; 2016: 511) explains nothing.
518 Linearization and typology
nene
For the emphatic nene ‘no, no’, observe the manuscript punctuation: ja · ja · ne · ne
(Mt 5:37) ‘yes - yes - no - no’ (Uppström 1854: 3; Falluomini 2015: 58).
8 For the development of the different Germanic languages, see Meillet (1949), Rösel (1962), Makaev
(1964), Harbert (2007: 6f.), Askedal (2009), Shimomiya (2009), Rousseau (2016: 45–64). For a useful
overview of Germanic syntax, see Lühr (2017).
11.16 The position of Gothic within Germanic 519
Gothic has no indefinite article at all, nor did Old English, Old Norse, or Old
Saxon. All of the modern Germanic languages except Icelandic have developed an
indefinite article from the number ‘one’, parallel to the development in Romance
(Harbert 2007: 139ff.).
Proto-Indo-European had a past/nonpast tense system preserved in Anatolian
(e.g. Hittite) and Gothic. In the rest of Germanic, a future was created with an infini-
tive plus an auxiliary, e.g. English I will go. The most frequent future auxiliary in the
other Germanic languages corresponds to ‘shall’, the oldest form of which is Goth.
skulan ‘owe, be obligated’. Other strategies for the future are discussed by Morris
(1990) and Harbert (2007: 297–301).9
The PIE mediopassive voice became passive in Germanic, vestigial everywhere
but Gothic, e.g. gibada ‘is given’. A new middle was attempted with reflexive *sik,
e.g. Goth. gawandida sik ‘returned’. This construction became most productive in
North Germanic, e.g. ON felr sik ‘hides himself, fel-a-sk ‘to hide (oneself)’; þyngjask
‘grow heavy’ vs. þyngja ‘make heavy’, etc. By sharp contrast, Old English and more
generally North Sea Germanic (Old Saxon in part) lost *sik in the prehistoric period.
In the past tense, probably by contact with Latin (cf. Dolcetti Corazza 1974;
Stefanescu-Draganesti 1982), a new periphrastic passive was created with Germanic-
specific formatives meaning ‘be’ or ‘become’, as in Goth. gibans was ‘was/had been
given’, gibans warþ ‘came to be given’.10 This formation was in the process of being
generalized to the nonpast system; cf. Goth. gibans ist ‘is/was given’, gibans wairþiþ
‘gets given’. Though distributed differently in the later Germanic languages (e.g. modern
German), in early Germanic the ‘become’ passive was typical of changes of state, like
the 18 verða passives in the Edda, restricted to being born and dying, and the 14 weorðan
passives in Beowulf tied to fate and similar contexts (Schröder 1957–8: 102ff.).
In the aspectual system, the Indo-European perfect became the strong preterite in
Germanic. North and West Germanic created a new perfect system most often with
the auxiliary ‘have’ (type I have done it), as in Old English (26).11
(26) Old English perfect
hæfde se gōda … cempan gecorone (Beowulf 205f.)
had.3sg D good.nom.sg.m.wk warrior.acc.pl chosen.acc.pl
‘the mighty one had chosen warriors’
9 The sources of the future tense are not identical in content (cf. Wells 2009, Kleyner 2015, Rousseau
2016: 249–60). Ambrosini (1965) argues that Gothic maintains nuances of the root’s meaning and imparts
a temporal sense following an infinitive, and a modal one when preceding the infinitive. The usual
subcategories in Germanic are plan or intent (Goth. 2.munan, haban), volition (Eng. will), inception
(Goth. duginnan), obligation (Goth. haban, skulan*). In the rest of Germanic one or the other of these
subcategories expanded their domain into a future tense (Morris 1990).
10 Contact is more likely than the speculation that the periphrastic passive was created because of the
ambiguity of the ‘mediopassive’ (e.g. Lühr 2008: 327), which had become passive, or the idea that the
periphrastic passive was easily grammaticalized because of the alleged slavishness to the Greek translation
(Drinka 2011). Neither of these accounts for the distribution with the inherited (medio)passive in the
nonpast tense system vs. the periphrastic preterite passive.
11 In reality, there is controversy over whether the have construction in (25) was a true perfect in Old
English, or still a resultative (Harbert 2007: 294, w. lit).
520 Linearization and typology
Lamberterie (2004: 308) suggests a possible ambiguity with ‘you have a hardened
heart’, while conceding that the Greek admits only the reading in (27). Apart from the
fact that Goth. daubata is an adjective ‘hard’, not a participle *daubiþ(ata) ‘hardened’
(cf. ga-daubjan* ‘to harden’: Gering 1874: 302), this is a word-for-word rendering of
the Greek and Latin texts (Drinka 2011: 50).12 Drinka (pp. 59–63) cites additional
examples and suggests that in cases of more Latin influence, which is impossible to
define, something closer to a periphrastic perfect may occur.
12 Pre-Vulgate variants abound (VL 1970: 69) but are identical in content, e.g. adhūc caecātum habētis
cor vestrum (codd. Brixianus, Rehdigeranus) ‘do you still have your heart blinded?’, adhūc obtūsum est cor
vestrum ‘is your heart still hardened?’, etc. Lat. caecātum is close to Goth. blindata (on a par with daubata)
except that the former is a result state and the latter a plain state. Goth. unte (listed as 2.unte ‘because’ in
Snædal) should signal a causal clause but has no Greek basis (Pennington 2010: 444). As a rendering of
Gk. éti ‘still, yet’, unte appears to derive from *und-þē, parallel to the formation of Lat. ad-hūc [to-this
(point in time)] ‘still, yet’ (see unte in App.).
11.17 Typology of Gothic and Germanic linearization 521
To some extent, early Germanic might qualify as a free word order (FWO) lan-
guage, a slight misnomer because completely free orders do not exist (Miller 2010:
ii. 13, w. lit). FWO languages have proportionately the highest number of mixed adjec-
tive-noun/noun-adjective orders, but a slight preference for genitive-noun (Miller
2010: ii. 26f., w. lit). In Gothic, however, the default orders (by a slight preference)
were adjective-noun but noun-genitive and noun-possessive, illustrating the problem
of the mixed orders resulting from a series of microparametric changes. Ultimately,
the Germanic target was to have all modifiers and complements predictable with
respect to all heads, both lexical and functional (Miller 2010: ii, chs. 1–2; cf.
Kiparsky 1996).
APPENDI X
SUPPLEMENTA L INFOR M ATION
Gothic words referred to in brief throughout this work are here provided with additional
information, including etymology. Lemmata are listed alphabetically in their Gothic form.
More technical information follows, along with references containing sometimes overlapping,
sometimes complementary or even conflicting discussion of the etymologies and the recon-
struction.1
aftra (adv) ‘again, in turn, back, backwards, re-’, e.g. jah aftra afaiaik (Mt 26:72) ‘and he denied
it again’, aftra hausideduþ (Mt 5:33) ‘again, you have heard’, jah aftra Andraias jah Filippus
qeþun du Iesua (Jn 12:22) ‘and in turn Andrew and Philip told Jesus’, galaiþ in praitauria
aftra Peilatus (Jn 18:33) ‘Pilate went back into the palace’, jabai gagga, manwja izwis stad,
aftra qima (Jn 14:3) ‘if I go (and) prepare a place for you, I’ll come back’, sai ands aftra
(Lk 9:62) ‘looking backwards’, jah aftra gasatiþs warþ (Mk 8:25) ‘and he was restored’,
Helia(s) sweþauh qimands faurþis aftra gaboteiþ alla (Mk 9:12) ‘to be sure, Elijah will come
first and restore everything’ (Huth 1903: 32–8).
For the etymology cf. ON aptr ‘back, backwards, again’, OE æfter ‘after, afterwards’, OS,
OHG aftar ‘after, afterwards, behind’, usually reconstructed from *ap-trā; cf. Gk. apó ‘off,
away’, Goth. af ‘from, off ’, and the Vedic adverbs in -trā; more generally, cf. Goth. aftaro
‘behind’ (§3.31) < áp-tero- (LIPP 2.70), Ved. apatarám ‘farther off ’ < *h2epo-tero- (GED 8,
HGE 2, 3, EDPG 3). Dunkel denies the initial laryngeal and reconstructs simply *ap-trō
(LIPP 2.66, 68)
aggilus (m -u-) ‘angel’, -i- stem nom pl aggileis (Mk 1:13) beside aggiljus (Mk 12:25, Lk 2:15
~ aggeljus Rom 8:38A), supposedly modeled on Lat. angelus, pl angelī (Lühr 1985: 142), but
as an older Germanic borrowing in the form *angil- (with pre-Wulfilian i [ibid.]; pace
Snædal 2018: 188), native -jus can be expected. Also -i- stem is gen pl aggele (Lk 9:26, 15:10)
~ aggile (1Tim 5:21A, Col 2:18B)
The ultimate source is Gk. ággelos ‘messenger’, [NT] ‘angel’; cf. ON engill, OHG angil/
engil, OS engil, OE æn(c)gel / en(c)gel, etc. (§2.8; EIE 80, w. lit); when ággelos designates
a human messenger, Goth. airus (q.v. below) is used (Laird 1940: 182f.; Neri 2003: 289;
NWG 414), but not exceptionlessly, e.g. Mt 11:10 (Wolfe 2011: 617)
aggwus* (adj -u-) ‘narrow’ (m/f aggwus, n aggwu); cf. ON ongr (-wa-stem), OE enge, OS, OHG
engi (-j- stem) from a Gmc. paradigm *anguz, f *ang wī ‘narrow’ < PIE *h2énghus
(< *h2emgh-u-), f *h2nghéwih2 ‘constricted’; cf. Skt. amhú- ‘narrow’ (PWGA 279ff., 284–8,
HGE 19, EDPG 28, Thöny 2013: 219f., LHE2 110f., 228). It is not likely that Gothic reflects an
*-iyo- formation *h2enghw-iyo- > Gmc. *angwijaz which contracts (except in verbs) to
1 Old Norse glosses follow Cleasby et al. (1957) or Zoëga (1910). Old Saxon forms and glosses are from
Tiefenbach (2010).
524 Appendix: Supplemental information
Goth. aggwus (Snædal 1993; cf. Grienberger 1900: 10); this reverses the more likely possibil-
ity that *-uj- became *-ij- in Germanic (Hill 2012)
a a (f -ō-) ‘(mass of) water’ (cf. Meid 1999a): in contrast to wato, a a can be a subject (Rousseau
2012: 160)2 = ON á ‘river’, OE ēa ‘stream, river’ (root stem), OS, OHG aha ‘stream’ < PGmc.
*ahwō < dial. IE (Lat. and Gmc.) *h2ékw-eh2- ‘running water’; cf. Lat. aqua ‘water’ (GED 12f.,
AHDR 2, HGE 5f., LHE2 116, 130), but possibly borrowed from a non-IE language (EDL 48f.);
perhaps a variant of PIE *h2ep- (EDPG 7); similar also is Hitt. hapa- ‘river’, which points to
*h2ebh-o- (EDHIL 294f.); if indeed a PIE word (whatever the precise root form), it could
have been influenced by *tekw- ‘flow’ (Neri 2016: 28)
ains (num, str adj -a-) ‘one; a certain; alone’ (§4.25) = ON einn ‘one, the same, a certain, any;
alone’, OS /ēn/ (en, én, énn, etc.) ‘one, alone, only, single, a’, OHG ein ‘id.’, OE ān ‘one; alone,
only; a certain; a(n); each’ < Gmc. *ain-a-z < dial. IE *óynos < ?*Hóy-(H)n-o- ‘one, unique’
(*oy-no- in LIPP 2.587f., LHE2 66): Lat. ūnus ‘one’, Old Prussian ains ‘id.’ [*(H)oy- ‘single’]
(AHDR 59, HGE 9, EDL 642, EDPG 11), possibly h1oi-n-o- with pronominal stem *h1ei- and
singulative -n- (Pronk 2015: 342)
air (adv) ‘early’ = ON ár ‘early, before’, OS, OHG ér ‘previously, before’, OE ær ‘previously,
earlier, before, ere’ < *airi < *ajiri < IE loc *áyeri (< ?*h2ei-er-i) ‘in the morning’ [*ayer- /
*h2ei-er- ‘day, morning’] (AHDR 6, GED 18, HGE 9, EDPG 12, LHE2 159)
airþa (f -ō-) ‘earth’ = ON jorð < Gmc. *erþō- (HGE 86); cf. OE eorð(e) (f -ōn-) ‘earth’, OS ertha
‘id.’, OHG erda ‘id.’, possibly from Semitic * rd- ‘earth’ (Vennemann 2003: ch. 7) rather
than IE (NWG 454, EDPG 118)
airus (m -u-) ‘(human) messenger’: attested only in the Bologna fragment and Luke (sg nom
airus Bl 1v.12, acc airu Lk 14:32, 19:14, pl acc airuns Lk 9:52, dat airum Lk 7:24) differs
from aggilus ‘(divine) messenger, angel’ (q.v. above); at Bl 1v.12 an apparent contrast is set up
between airus and aggilus (§10.11). For several attempts at an etymology see NWG 414, Neri
(2016: 30)
aiþei (f -īn-) ‘mother’ < *aiþī-n- (displacing inherited *modar); cf ON eiða [poetic] ‘id.’ (< *aiþōn-).
Conjectures on the IE etymology (cf. NWG 308f.) are discussed by Schuhmann (2018b),
who proposes *h1ait-ih2-(n)- ‘distribution’ > ‘the one who gives’; cf. OHG fuotar-eidī (f -īn-)
‘nurse’, but one cannot rule out the hypocoristic pairing of *atta- ‘daddy’ and *ait-ih2- ‘mommy’
(Yoon 2005); cf. Basque aita ‘father’ (EDPG 15)
1. aiþþau ‘or’ see 2. þau(h)
Often correlative aiþþau . . . aiþþau ‘either . . . or’. In one passage, a complex set of alterna-
tives is introduced by the hapax andizuh (with comparative *andiz ‘rather’: Sturtevant 1932:
56f., GED 37, EDPG 27; Rousseau 2016: 555f.): andizuh ainana fijaiþ jah anþarana frijoþ,
aiþþau ainamma andtiloþ, iþ anþaramma frakann (Lk 16:13) ‘either he will hate the one and
love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other’.
In the following example, negation seems to carry over into the aiþþau clause: niþ þan
nauhþanuh gabauranai wesun, aiþþau tawidedeina a þiuþis aiþþau unþiuþis (Rom 9:11A)
‘and (her children) had not yet been born, or could have done anything good or bad’.
2. aiþþau (12x) ‘or else, otherwise’, e.g. gaweihaids ist aba sa ungalaubjands in qenai; aiþþau
barna izwara unhrainja weseina (1Cor 7:14A) ‘the unbelieving husband is sanctified in (his)
wife; otherwise your children would be unclean’
3. aiþþau ‘then, in that case’ see 3. þau(h)
2 As discussed by Meillet (1918; 1965 [1921]: 217ff.) PIE had words for ‘water’, ‘fire’, and other natural elements
in both animate gender (as active agentive forces) and neuter (as inert elements).
Appendix: Supplemental information 525
aiws* (m –a-, 1x -i- §3.2) ‘time; age; long time; (n)ever’ (in aiwins ‘into the eons; forever’) = OS
ēwa* (f -n-) (only acc euun) ‘eternity’, OHG ēwa (f -a-) ‘time, age, eternity’ (cf. ON ævi (f)
‘age; (long) time; lifetime’ < *aiwī-n-) < Gmc. *aiwa-/-ō(n)- ‘eternity, age’ from thematized
*h2ei-w-o- (Thöny 2013: 95f.; LIPP 2.355); cf. Lat. aevum ‘age, period of time’, Gk. ai n ‘vital
power; lifetime, eternity, eon’, dialectal aiweí ‘forever’ < dat *h2(e)ywéi (Kiparsky 2010, w.
lit; LIPP 2.352) rather than loc *h2eiw-es-í [*h2ei-w- /*h2ey-u- /*h2óy-u- ‘vital force, life,
long life, age, eternity’] (GED 22, AHDR 2, HGE 10f., NWG 200f., EDPG 16)
ak (absolute clause-initial, freq, incl. Bl 1r.13) ‘but rather, however’ is used most often in gapped
clauses. Of the 275 instances in the translated corpus (less 2 restorations and 1 Skeireins
passage repeated from Jn), all but 6 translate Gk. allá ‘but’, all but 5 (overlapping with akei)
after a negated clause or constituent, e.g. ni galeiþiþ imma in hairto, ak in wamba (Mk 7:19)
‘it does not go into his heart but into his belly’ (details in Klein 2018b); aþþan and iþ (q.v.)
have wider scope than ak and akei, which are linked lexically to a preceding constituent
(Klein 2018b)
Relatives include OS ak ‘id.’, OHG oh ‘id.’, OE ac ‘id.’ < Gmc. *ak(e) (no certain etym. GED
23; possibly to Gk. áge ‘now, then’, Lat. age ‘id.’ HGE 11; or from *át-ge LIPP 2.88, hesitatingly)
ak-ei (~ ake Gal 2:14B) (92x, all but 2 translating Gk. allá ‘but’) ‘nevertheless, but’ differs from
ak in being verse-initial 39x (ak is verse-initial 21x) and is preceded by an affirmative con-
stituent (clause, phrase, word) 79x (Klein 2018b). In all but 15 occurrences (all in the Epistles),
akei coordinates clauses and categorically occupies initial position, e.g. siuks was ne a
dauþau, akei guþ ina gaarmaida (Phil 2:27A/B) ‘he was sick, near death, but God had mercy
on him’. Individual words in gapped clauses can be so coordinated in a passage described
by Klein (2018b) as “the most aberrant occurrence of akei”: akei unwerein, akei agis, akei
gairnein . . . (2Cor 7:11A/B) ‘but (also what) indignation, but (also what) fear, but (also what)
ardent desire . . . ’ (translating Gk. allá in the sense of allà kaí ‘but also’); the focus of akei is
as narrow as possible, but still lacking sharpness (Klein 2018b)
akran (n -a-) ‘fruit’ = ON akarn ‘fruit of wild tree, acorn’, OE æcern acorn < Gmc. *akrana-
(denom to akrs ‘field’) with suffix *-ana- (GED 24, MUN 83, NWG 320, EDPG 19)
akrs (m -a-) ‘(uninhabited) field’ (Scardigli 1973: 291f.) = ON akr, OS akkar, OHG ackar, OE
æcer ‘field’ (> acre) < PGmc. *akraz < PIE *h2égros ‘pasture’ > ‘field’: Lat. ager etc. ‘field’
(AHDR 1, GED 24, HGE 12, EDPG 18, LHE2 119)
aljan (n -a-) ‘avidity, eagerness, zeal’ = ON eljan (f) ‘endurance’, OS ellean ‘courage’, OHG ellen
‘zeal’, OE ellen ‘courage, valor, strength, zeal’ < Gmc. *alj-ana- < *h2l-i- (EDPG 23); cf. Hitt.
halai ‘set in motion’ < *h2l-ói- (EDHIL 271)
aljis* (prn adj -ja-) ‘other, else’ (gen sg n aljis 1Tim 1:10B, Gal 5:10B; acc pl n alja 2Cor 1:13A/B;
dat sg f al|jai Sk 7.2.14f.), widely attested as the first constituent of compounds, e.g. Goth.
aljakuns §7.12, aljaleiko §7.22, runic aljamarkiz (ORI 40) ‘foreigner’, etc. (Neri 2016: 31); cf.
Lat. alius, Gk. állos, etc. ‘other’ < *aly-ó- ‘(an)other’, built on locatival *ál-i ‘elsewhere’ (LIPP
2.21ff.) to the local adv *ál ‘elsewhere’ (LIPP 2.18f.), more traditionally *al-1 / *h2el- ‘beyond’
(EDL 34, EDG 72f., EDPG 23, LHE2 143)
alls (adj str -a-) ‘all’ = ON allr, OS, OHG al(l), OE eall, northern all all < Gmc. *allaz < *h2el-
nó- [*h2el- ‘grow, increase, nurture’] (LIPP 2.19; more traditionally *h2el- ‘all’ AHDR 3, HGE
16, or (??) pre-PGmc. *olno- LHE2 165); simple thematic *h2el-ó- occurs in compounds Goth.,
OS, OHG ala- (EDPG 23; Neri 2016: 31)
an (5x): S-initial particle that requests information regarding a preceding discourse topic
(Ferraresi 2005: 146ff.). Meyer (1880: 10f.) and Ferraresi compare Germ. denn, including in
Luther’s translation of the same passages. In all but one passage an co-occurs with a form of
526 Appendix: Supplemental information
as in an insisting sense ‘who then?’, e.g. an as ist mis ne undja (Lk 10:29) ‘who then is
my neighbor?’, an as mag ganisan (Lk 18:26) ‘who then can be saved?’, an a taujaima
(Lk 3:10) ‘what then are we to do?’. The same meaning without a(s) occurs in an nuh
þiudans is þu (Jn 18:37) ‘you then are a king?’, for which Meyer (1880: 11) cites Luther: ‘so bist
du dennoch ein König?’ (cf. Lat. interrog an and see LIPP 2.28–32, w. lit)
ana (P + acc) ‘onto; on account of ’ (+dat ‘on, at’) = ON á ‘over, on, upon’, OHG an(a) ‘at, on,
over’, OE an / on ‘on’. The usual reconstruction is Gmc. *ana(i) < IE *ana or *h2enh2; cf. Gk.
aná ‘on’ [*an- ‘on’] (AHDR 3, GED 30, HGE 17, EDPG 26); Dunkel reconstructs the particle
as PIE *áno, and Goth. ana from *áno-o (LIPP 2.50f.)
atta (m -n-) (with D) ‘father’, (without D) ‘God’ (Yoon 2005); cf. ON atti ‘id.’, OHG atto ‘ances-
tor’ < Gmc. *atta-n-, a widespread hypocoristic; cf. Gk. átta, Lat. atta [Festus: a reverential
appellative], etc. ‘daddy’ (Grienberger 1900: 32f., Scardigli 1973: 69, 74, GED 46, AHDR 6,
Shields 1990, HGE 27, EDPG 39, Neri 2016: 35, Falluomini 2018b: §4, LHE2 20, 89, 118);
*at-on- / *at-n- (Hansen 2018: 177ff.)
aþ-þan: strongly adversative conj, clause-initial, normally verse-initial, freq, connects units with
no particular cohesion (Klein 2018a) ‘but then,3 but nonetheless, however, nevertheless’
(Moerkerken 1888: 15f.). This compound of at + þan (LIPP 2.89) translates Gk. dé 43x (out
of 56) in the Gospels (Klein 2018a), and 152x in the Epistles (Friedrichsen 1961a: 106), e.g.
aþþan jabai nimis qen, ni frawaurhtes (1Cor 7:28A) ‘but if you take a wife, you have not com-
mitted a sin’. Of the 18 correspondents of Gk. dé, aþþan is number 3 (Rousseau 2012: 217),
but neutral to the relationship ‘A but B’, which is expressed by iþ (ibid. 219). It translates Gk.
(kaì) gár ‘for’ only in the Epistles (Marold 1881b: 27), contrastive mén . . . dé (Sturtevant 1933c:
349), and seems to render Gk. h ste ‘so, consequently’ in aþþan nu sweþauh witoþ weihata
(Rom 7:12A) ‘then therefore indeed the law is holy’, unless the Gothic translator perceived an
adversative relationship with the previous verse.
augo ‘eye’ = ON auga ‘eye; hole in a needle’, OS ōga* (dat ogon etc.) ‘eye’, OHG ouga ‘id.’, OE
ēage ‘eye’ < Gmc. *aug-ōn- ‘eye’, ultimately from the IE root *h3okw- ‘eye’ but adapted to the
Germanic -n- stems denoting body parts. Another hypothesis is that *h3ekw-n- may be old,
a singulative contrasting with the dual *h3ekw-ih1 in Gk. ósse, OCS oči ‘eyes’ (Pronk 2015:
343; cf. Thöny 2013: 155; Neri 2016: 36).4 The most likely explanation of the root initial au
is analogy to auso ‘ear’ (MUN 173f.; other suggestions in NWG 227f., EDPG 41)
auk: an adverb unrestricted in position (including clause-initial at Jn 9:30) ‘also’, or an exposi-
tory particle, commenting on or providing a rationale (or confirmation) for a prior state-
ment ‘for, but, also, furthermore, moreover’ (Marold 1881b: 19–22; Fuß 2003ff.; Ferraresi 2005:
162ff., 169ff.; Klein 2018a), more formally A auk B = B implies A (Rousseau 2012: 218f.). As
a modality particle, auk favors second position, as in ni auk ist (Lk 6:43, 8:17, Rom 10:12A,
2Thess 3:2B) ‘for (there) is not’ ~ nist auk (Rom 14:17C, Bl 1v.3) ‘id.’. It can occupy third place
after other particles, e.g. ni swa auk (2Cor 8:13A/B) ‘for not so’ (cf. swa auk Bl 1r.13 ‘for so’)
and after short phrases: þugkeiþ im auk (Mt 6:7) [seems to.them for] ‘for they think’, gameliþ
ist auk (1Cor 1:19A, Rom 12:19A/C, 14:11C, Gal 4:22A/B, 4:27B) ~ gamelid ist auk (Lk 4:10)
‘for it is written’, bi þamma auk (Lk 6:23) ‘for in that (way)’.
3 Aþþan þan in the sense of ‘but then’ does not occur. This string occurs only with the meaning ‘but
when’ (Mk 8:20, Gal 2:11B, Jn 15:26).
4 The etymology of ataugjan ‘show’ makes better sense as ‘(put) to the eye’ (e.g. GED 48) than as a
prefixed form of ogjan ‘terrify’ (LIPP 2.14, w. lit; Neri 2016: 36). Note also Goth. augjan* (2x) ‘show’, ON
eygja ‘furnish with an eye or loop, look’ (HGE 28, EDPG 41).
Appendix: Supplemental information 527
By slightly dated figures, auk occurs by itself 232x and with other particles 21x, most
often rendering Gk. gár ‘for’: 18x in Mt and Jn, 30x in Mk, and 35x in Lk (Friedrichsen 1961a:
106). Of the 18 correspondents of Gk. dé, auk is number 17 (Rousseau 2012: 217). It is cognate
with ON auk ‘also’, ok ‘and’, OS ōk ‘also’, OHG ouh (> Germ. auch) ‘also’, OE ēac ‘also, how-
ever’ (not from *h2eug- ‘increase’, pace AHDR 6) < Gmc. *auk(e) < IE *h2éu ge ‘and also’: Gk.
aũ(-ge) ‘again’ (LIPP 2.281; cf. GED 50, HGE 29, EDPG 42)
auso ‘ear’ = ON eyra, OS, OHG ōra, OE ēare ‘ear’ < Gmc. *aus/z-ōn- possibly via *h2éus-ōn /
*h2eus-én- (Bernharðsson 2001: 141f.; more extensive discussion in Mottausch 2011: 39–72)
< IE *h2eus- (cf. Lat. auris ‘ear’, Gk. oũs, gen oúatos (< *h2eus-s-n-) ‘id.’, prob with o from
‘eye’) but adapted to the Germanic -n- stems for body parts (Stüber 2002: 193f., NWG 228,
EDHIL 227–9, EDL 63, EDPG 44); alternatively, the -s- stem is original in ‘ear’ and the -n-
stem spread from ‘eye’ within IE (Pronk 2015: 34)
1. -ba (encl conj 1x) ‘if ’:
saei galaubeiþ du mis, þauh ga-ba-dauþniþ, libaid (Jn 11:25)
‘he who believes in me, even if he dies, he will live’
[Gk. ho pisteúōn eis emé, kàn apothánēi, z setai
‘the one believing in me, even though he dies, he will live’]
Most of the Vet. Lat. MSS have variations on et(iam)sī moriātur / mortuus fuerit ‘even if he
(will) die’; cod. Corbeiensis has licet moriātur ‘although/granted he die’ (VL 1963: 124)
As to the composition, þau-h may decompose into 3./4. þau + -uh ‘and then even in that
case’, and -ba is a clitic form of jabai ‘if ’, as also in i-ba, ni-ba (GED 55; Rousseau 2012: 224;
2016: 351; LHE2 239)
2. -ba (adverbial formative §3.32): the numerous proposals for the origin of -ba can be found in
LIPP 2.120ff. Joseph (1982) connects Goth. -ba with Greek adverbial -pha in més-pha ‘until;
(in the) meantime’, hence a reconstruction *-bheh2. Heidermanns (1996) objects that this was
too residual to create the productive Gothic type and argues for an exocentric compounding
element *bhh2-o- (to *bheh2- ‘shine’), as in Gk. árgu-phos ‘white’ (cf. árgu-ros ‘silver’), stéri-
phos ‘unfertile, barren; firm, hard’ (to stereós ‘stiff, hard, firm, steady, solid’—or steĩra ‘barren
female’ EDG 1400f.), Lat. acerbus ‘harsh(-tasting), bitter, sour’, but that is from *akri-þo-, a
*-dh- formation (LSDE 183f.; EDL 22), and the OCS abstract suffix -ba, e.g. zŭloba ‘badness’
(zŭlŭ ‘bad’). He also compares dat sg *bhāi in interrogative ibai and jabai ‘if ’ (q.v.), and inst
*bhā in Homeric ph ‘just as, like’. Dunkel rejects the root ‘shine’ in favor of a particle *bho
‘true, truly’, which enables inclusion of -ba (< *bho-h1), Gk. ph and -pha (LIPP 2.120ff.)
bagms (m -a-) ‘tree’ < Gmc. *bagmaz (HGE 32), ON baðmr ‘tree, beam’, OSw. baghn ‘tree trunk’;
cf. OHG boum ‘tree, pole’, OE bēam (> beam) ‘tree, pillar, beam, post’; one proposal is Gmc.
*baumaz ‘tree’ < IE *bhou-mo- (HGE 39) ‘the growing thing’? [*bheu- ‘exist, grow’] (AHDR
12, HGE 39), but no such root is recognized in LIV. Grienberger (1900: 42) argues that the
original meaning was ‘beam, trunk’, related to ‘shoulder, upper arm’ (cf. OE bōg ‘shoulder;
arm; branch’ < Gmc. *bōgu- < PIE *bheh2gh-u-); on this account bagms goes back to
*bhh2gh-mo- (EDPG 47). Neri (2016: 39f.) suggests dissimilation from *baugma- ‘curved, bent’;
other proposals in Davis (1999) and Mankov (2007)
bairan (str 4) ‘bear, carry, bring; endure’ = ON bera ‘id.’, OS, OHG beran ‘id.’, OE beran, bær,
bæron, boren ‘id.’ bear < Gmc. * eran- < PIE *bhér-e- [*bher- ‘bear, carry’] (AHDR 10, HGE
41, LIV 76f., EDPG 59)
bairhts* (adj -a-) ‘bright, clear, manifest, evident’ = ON bjartr ‘bright, shining; illustrious’, OS
berht ‘bright, light, clear’, OHG beraht ‘bright, shining’, OE beorht ‘bright, shining, light,
528 Appendix: Supplemental information
clear’ bright < Gmc. *berh-taz < *bherh1g-to- [*bherh1g- ‘shine; bright’] (GPA 124, AHDR
11, HGE 42, HGE 42, EDPG 60)
*balþs (adj -a-) ‘bold, frank’ (cf. balþaba ‘boldly’) = ON ballr ‘dangerous, dire’ (cf. ball-riði
‘bold-rider’), OS bald ‘valiant, bold’, OHG bald ‘brave, courageous, bold, strong, intense’,
OE b(e)ald ‘bold, brave, confident’ < Gmc. *bal-þ/daz ‘brave’ < *?bhol-to- [*bhel- ‘blow,
swell’] (GPA 115, AHDR 9, HGE 34, Schaffner 2001: 280, Kiparsky 2010; no IE reconstruc-
tion in EDPG 50)
barn (n -a-) ‘infant; child’ = ON barn ‘id.’, OS, OHG barn ‘child, son, descendant’, OE bearn
‘id.’ < Gmc. *barna- < dial. IE *bhór-no- [*bher- ‘bear’] (GED 62, NWG 316, EDPG 53; Neri
2016: 40 [derived from verbal adj *bher-nó-]; see bairan ‘bear’)
baurgs (f -C-) ‘city’; (gen sg Neh 7:2) ‘palace’ (Pausch 1954: 260, w. lit) = ON borg ‘castle, citadel;
town, city; small hill’, OS, OHG burg ‘castle; fortified place; town’, OE burg, burh ‘castle, forti-
fied place; borough, town; city’ (details in Kahle 1887: 41–4) < Gmc. *burg- ‘fortified place,
town’ < post-PIE *bhrgh- ‘hill’: despite the many proposals, the highest probabilty attaches to
Hitt. parku- ‘high’ < *bhrgh-u- [*bhergh- ‘get high; raise’ LIV 78f.] (NWG 39f., EDHIL 637,
EDPG 85, LHE2 101); cf. Gmc. *berg-a- ‘high place, mountain’ in ON bjarg / berg ‘boulder;
cliff ’, OE beorg ‘hill; mountain’, OS, OHG berg ‘mountain’, which dialectally replaced *fer-
gunja- as ‘mountain’ (Meid 1993) or competed with it in early Gmc. (cf. EDPG 60)
beidan* (str 1) ‘await, wait for, expect’ = ON bíða ‘(a)wait, suffer, undergo’, OS bīdan ‘wait, stay,
expect’, OHG bītan ‘wait, anticipate, hope’, OE ge-bīdan (str 1) ‘await; wait for; live to see;
(a)bide, continue, live through; experience’ < *bīdan- ‘wait’ [*bheidh- ‘trust’ LIV 71f.] (GED
65, AHDR 8, HGE 46, EDPG 63, LHE2 180f.)
bi (P + acc) ‘around; about; on the subject of; for’, (+ dat) ‘on, according to, by’ = OS be, bī ‘by’,
OHG bī ‘id.’, OE be, bī by, traditionally derived from Gmc. *bi < *(um)bi [*ambhi / *mbhi
‘around’] (Grienberger 1900: 45f., AHDR 3, HGE 44f., 434); cf. *h2nt-bhí ‘from/on both sides of ’
(?) [*h2ent- ‘front’] > Gmc. *umbi (P) ‘around’ > ON um(b) ‘around, about’, OS, OHG umbi ‘id.’,
OE ymb(e) ‘about, by’ (LSDE 298, LHE2 98, 165); also possible for bi is *h1epi = Gk. epí ‘on’
(EDPG xxix); Dunkel argues for syncretism of *bhí ‘by’ and *pi ‘on, at, against’ (LIPP 2.113, 247)
bi-gitan (str 5) ‘find, discover’ = ON geta ‘attain, produce, get; be able to’, OS bi-getan ‘find,
gain, obtain, seize’, OHG bi-gezzan ‘obtain’, OE bi-gi(e)tan ‘find, obtain, (be)get’ (cf. Eng. get
< ON geta) < Gmc. *getan- ‘find (a way); be able’ [*ghed- ‘seize, take’]; cf. nasal-infixed
*ghe-n-d- in Lat. prae-hend-ō ‘I grasp, seize’ (AHDR 29, HGE 133, LIV 194, EDPG 176)
-biudan* (ana-biudan* ‘command, order’ (str 2) = ON bjóða ‘offer; invite; order; proclaim’,
OS biodan* ‘offer’ (inf attested in gi-biodan ‘command, order’), OHG biotan ‘id.’, OE
bēodan ‘bid, command, order; proclaim, announce; offer, grant’ < Gmc. *beudan- ‘com-
mand; offer’ < IE *bhéudh-e- [*bheudh- ‘be awake, make aware’]; cf. Gk. peúthein ‘give
notice’ (AHDR 11, LIV 82f., NWG 392 , EDPG 61)
bleiþs (adj -(j)a-) ‘merciful’ = ON blíðr ‘gentle, mild; friendly; pleasant’, OS blīthi ‘joyful,
happy’, OHG blīdi ‘joyful, happy, merry, glad’, OE blīðe ‘joyful, glad, merry’ < Gmc. *blīþ(j)az
‘mild, kind’; IE ancestry uncertain (GPA 132, HGE 49, EDPG 69)
blinds (adj -a-) ‘blind’ = ON blindr, OS blind, OHG blint, OE blind blind < Gmc. *blindaz,
earlier *bl-en-daz [*bhel- ‘flash’] (GPA 134, AHDR 9, HGE 48) or derived from *blandan-
‘blend, mix’, whence ‘make murky’, ‘be blind’ (EDPG 66f., 69)
boka (f -ō-) ‘letter (of a written code or the law)’ (Rom 7:6A, 2Cor 3:6A/B 2x), ‘bill (promissory
note)’ (Lk 16:6, 7), pl ‘letters (written characters)’ (Gal 6:11A/B), ‘letters, learning’ (Jn 7:15),
‘the Scripture’ (2Tim 3:16A/B), ‘the Scriptures’ (Mk 12:24 [margin gloss for mela], 14:49,
Appendix: Supplemental information 529
Lk 4:16, Rom 15:4C, 1Cor 15:3, 4A, 1Tim 4:13B), ‘letter, epistle’ (2Cor 7:8A/B, 2Thess 3:14A/B),
‘letters, epistles’ (2Cor 3:1A/B, 10:9, 10, 11B), ‘book (esp. of the Bible)’ (Gk. bíblos: Mk 12:26,
Lk 3:4, 20:42, Phil 4:3A/B; Gk. biblíon: Lk 4:17, 20), ‘books, scrolls, written documents’
(2Tim 4:13A), ‘writ/papers of divorce’ (bokos afsateinais Mk 10:4, afstassais bokos Mt 5:31
[§4.15]) (Laird 1940: 138ff.)
The source is PGmc. *bōkō-; cf. OS bōka* <boke> ‘beech’, OHG buohha ‘id.’ < PGmc.
*bōk(j)ō- ‘beech’; note also Gmc. * ōk-z (f -C-) in ON bók ‘beech(tree); book’, OS bōk*
<boc, buok> ‘book, tablet’, OHG buoh ‘book, script, scripture, letter’, OE bōc ‘written docu-
ment, composition, book’ [*bhāg-o/ā- / *bheh2g/g-o/eh2- ‘beech tree’]: Lat. fāgus ‘beech’, etc.
(GED 77f., HGE 51f., NWG 43, EDPG 71f.)
braiþs* (adj -a-) ‘broad’ (n braid)= ON breiðr, OS brēd, OHG breit, OE brād broad < Gmc.
*braidaz (etym. unknown GED 79; ignored in AHDR; from otherwise unknown *bhroidh-o-
EDPG 73; from *bhroi-to- to the root *bhrei- ‘cut’ [*bhreiH- LIV 92] HGE 53; other sugges-
tions in HGE 53, EDPG 73)
briggan (nonpst system str 3: GG 151; suppl, wk -C-) ‘bring, lead; render’ (§5.12) = OS,
OHG bringan ‘bring’, OE bringan (> bring) < Gmc. *bre/ing-an- ; it has been speculated that
expected pret *brang, PPP *brungan- (like bindan, band, bundan-) was replaced by brāhta,
etc.; cf. brūhta ‘used’ and the parallel þāhta ‘thought’, þūhta ‘seemed’ (Sturtevant 1950: 81ff.),
but (i) OE poetic brungen and OHG prungen can be secondary by analogy with rhyming
pairs like sing (VEW 136f., GG 173), and (ii) that is impossible if the root etymology is
indeed *bhr-h2nk -, i.e. *bher- ‘bear, carry’ + *h2nek- ‘reach, arrive’ (Brugmann 1901; HGE
55; LIV 282ff.; Rousseau 2016: 405; other suggestions in EDPG 77, favoring preverb *pro +
root *h1enk- ‘obtain’)
broþar (m -r-) ‘brother’ (like fadar ‘father’, nom broþar was an original vocative: Stiles 1988;
Hamp 1990; §2.4) = ON bróðir, OS brōthar, OHG bruodar, OE brōþor (> brother) < Gmc.
*brōþer- < PIE *bhréh2tēr / *bhréh2tr-o/es (AHDR 12, HGE 57f., LSDE 299, EDPG 79, LHE2
116, MPIE 2.4.3)
brūkjan (wk 1 -C- §5.14) ‘use’ (§4.43), ‘share (in)’ (§4.29); cf. strong OE brūcan ‘use’, at least
originally strong OHG brūhhan / brūhhen ‘id.’, despite controversy probably originally a
primary *-yé/ó- formation *bhruhx g-yé- (LIV 96, EDL 244f., Rombouts 2017: 130–3)
-bugjan (wk 1 -C- §5.15) ‘buy, purchase’ = ON byggja ‘let out, lend; get married’, OS buggian ‘buy,
pay’, OE bycgan ‘buy’ < Gmc. *bugj-an- possibly < dial. IE *bhugh-yé- [*bheugh- ‘bend’] (AHDR
12, LIV 85f., HGE 61, LHE 115, 119; denied in EDPG 82; affirmed in Rombouts 2017: 124)
dags (m -a-) ‘day’ = ON dagr, OS dag, OHG tac, OE dæg day < Gmc. *dagaz < dial. IE
*dhog wh-o-s: cf. Lith. dãgas ‘summer heat’ (NWG 55; Thöny 2018)
dal-aþ (adv §3.31, as in alj-aþ ‘elsewhere’ = Gk. állo-thi ‘id.’) ‘down, to the ground’, lit. ‘valley-
wise’ (see dals* ‘valley’)
dals* (m -a-) occurs 3x: ‘ravine, valley’ (Lk 3:5), ‘hole (in the ground)’ (Lk 6:39), usgrof dal uf
mesa (Mk 12:1) ‘dug a hole under the table’ (= Gk. hupol nion ‘vessel under a press to receive
wine (or oil); vat’), i.e. ‘dug a (receiving) pit under the (winepress) table’ (?) (cf. Wolfe 2018b)
Relatives include ON dalr ‘dale’, OS dal ‘valley’, OHG tal ‘id.’, OE dæl ‘gulf, den, dale’
< Gmc. *dalaz / *dalan (HGE 67) < PIE *dholh2-o- ‘valley, vault’: cf. W dol ‘meadow, valley’,
OSlav. dolě ‘below’ (Matasović 2004: 104) [*dhel(h2)- ‘a hollow’] (AHDR 18, EDPG 87)
daufs* (adj -a-) (only acc sg n daubata Mk 8:17) ‘insensitive, hard’ = ON daufr ‘deaf ’, MLG dōf
‘id.’, OHG toub ‘id.’, OE dēaf ‘id.’ < Gmc. *dauba-z ‘deaf, sluggish, numb’ < *dhou-bho- [*dheu-
‘cloud, smoke’]; cf. Gk. tuphlós ‘blind’ < *dhubh-ló- (GPA 148, AHDR 19, HGE 69, EDPG 89f.)
530 Appendix: Supplemental information
daupjan (wk 1) ‘baptize’ = ON deypa ‘dip; baptize’, OS dōpian <dopean> ‘baptize’, OHG toufen
‘id.’, probably caus to *dupp/bōn- ‘dip’ < *dhubh-néh2- [cf. diups* ‘deep’] (EDPG 91, 109)
daur (n -a-) ‘door, gate(way)’ = OS dor, dur ‘gate’, duru ‘door’, OHG tor ‘gate’, OE dor (f) ‘large
door, gate’, duru door (cf. ON dyrr f pl ‘doorway’) (details in Kahle 1887: 47ff.) < PGmc.
*dur-a- / *dur-ō ‘gate, (single) door’ [*dhwór- / *dhur- ‘door(way)’] (AHDR 20, HGE 79, EDPG
110; Thöny 2013: 146ff., LHE2 121)
diups* (adj -a-) ‘deep’ = ON djúpr, OS diop, OHG tiof, tiufi, OE dēop deep < Gmc. *deupaz
‘deep’ [*dheubh- ‘deep’]; cf. Lith. dubùs ‘sunken, recessed; depressed; deep’; the /p/ in Germanic
can derive from *dheubh-no- by Kluge’s Law (*deubnaz > *deubbaz > *deuppaz) and short-
ening of geminates in overlong syllables: *deuppaz > *deupaz (EDPG xxxiv, 94). Since Ringe
rejects Kluge’s Law (§2.4), he resorts to the traditional reconstruction *dheub- (LHE2 118,
139; see also GPA 153f., AHDR 19, HGE 71)
dragan* (str 6) ‘draw’? (only dragand [~ gadragand A] sis laisarjans (2Tim 4:3B) ‘they draw
to themselves teachers’, translating Gk. episōreúsousin, Lat. coacervābunt ‘they will heap up/
accumulate (teachers)’) = ON draga ‘draw, drag, pull; procure; delay’, OS dragan ‘carry, bring,
present’, OHG tragan ‘id.’, OE dragan ‘draw, drag’ < Gmc. *dragan- < dial. IE *dhrógh-e- (or
*dhragh-e- LHE2 212); a relationship to Lat. trahō ‘I pull, drag, haul’ is not impossible (pace
EDL 627, EDPG 99); the root is variously reconstructed *tragh-/*dhragh- (AHDR 20, 93),
*dhregh- (LIV 154), *tr(e)h2gh- > *dhr(e)h2gh- (Miller 1977a, LSDE 205)
drig(g)kan (str 3) ‘drink’ = ON drekka, OS drinkan, OHG trinkan, OE drincan drink < Gmc.
*drinkan-, older *drenk-an- [?*dhreg- ‘draw’ or *dhreg- ‘wet, moisten’]; the past participle
drugkans ‘drunk, intoxicated’ = ON drukkinn, MLG drunken, OHG (win-)truncan, OE
druncen drunk (AHDR 20, HGE 77, EDPG 103)
driusan (in ga-driusan ‘to drop’) (str 2) ‘fall (down)’ = OS driosan ‘id.’, OE drēosan ‘rush,
fall, perish’ < Gmc. *dreusan- < PIE ?*dhréuHs-e- [?*dhreuHs- ‘fall’] EDPG 102 (cf. LIV 157f.
?*dhreus-; AHDR 20 *dhreu-(s-); differently HGE 76)
du (prep + dat) ‘to; in order to’, also purposive and the only preposition Gothic uses with the
infinitive (Mossé 1956: 185); one of the prepositional uses is du-þe ‘for that reason’ (= Gk. dià
toũto ‘id.’); cf. duh-þe / duþþe < *du+(u)h+þe ‘and for that reason’ (Ivanov 1999). Gothic
alone has du; the rest of Germanic has *tō/*te ‘to’: OS tō/te, OHG zuo/zi, OE tō to / te ‘id.’
[*de-/*dō directional adv/prep]; cf. Slavic *do ‘to’ etc. (AHDR 14, HGE 408); another hypoth-
esis is that du is a loan from Celtic; no agreement (see LIPP 2.150, w. lit)
du-ginnan* (str 3) ‘begin’; cf. OE be-ginnan begin, OS bi-ginnan* ‘id.’, OHG bi-ginnan ‘id.’; etym.
uncertain (EDPG 178)
fadrein (m/n -a-?) ‘parents’, normally classified as singular: nom fadrein (5x), acc fadrein (2x),
gen fadrinais (Lk 2:4), fadrinis (Eph 3:15A/B). In reality, fadrein is a defective masculine plural
(as a reflex of an old dual; see Bammesberger 1995b), as shown by D-agreement: þai fadrein
(Jn 9:20, 22) ‘the parents’ (§4.3), þans fadrein (Jn 9:18) ‘id.’. The classification as singular is
due to (i) Gothic (otherwise) has no endingless nom / acc plurals, and (ii) the word has
neuter plural forms ‘parents; ancestors’: nom fadreina (2Cor 12:14A/B), dat fadreinam (5x,
3 dupl), e.g. ni auk skulun barna fadreinam huzdjan, ak fadreina barnam (2Cor 12:14A/B)
‘for children do not owe it to save up for their parents, but parents for their children’. The
plural forms occur only in the Epistles, never in the Gospels (cf. Yoon 2005: 940). A putative
exception is the genitive as a collective ‘lineage’ but, even there, the forms differ: all fadreinis
(Eph 3:15A/B) ‘every family’, us garda fadreinais Daweidis (Lk 2:4) ‘from the house of the
family of David’. The latter may be from a -ni- stem *fadreins (Bammesberger 1995b: 3)
Appendix: Supplemental information 531
fāhan (str 7) ‘seize, arrest, apprehend; possess’ = OS, OHG fāhan ‘id.’, ON fá ‘id.’, OE fōn ‘id.’
< *faŋχ-an- < IE *pónk-e-, usually derived from the root *peh2k- ‘become fast(ened)’
~ *peh2g- ‘fasten’; cf. Lat. pangō ‘fasten, fix’ (AHDR 61, HGE 92; LIV 461f.) with laryngeal
vocalization from *ph2ng- (Woodhouse 2011a); a different proposal for Germanic is preverb
*h2po + *h1enk- ‘obtain’ or *h2enk- ‘reach’ (EDPG 128, w. lit)
faihu (n -u-) ‘possession, wealth’ (Scardigli 1973: 77) = ON fé ‘cattle, property, money’, OS fehu
‘cattle, property’, OHG fihu ‘cattle, animal, money’, OE feoh ‘cattle, property, money’ < PGmc.
*féhu [*péku ‘livestock, movable property, wealth’] (AHDR 63, HGE 97, EDPG 134, LHE2
114), an original barytone (cf. Lith. pẽkus ‘cattle’, Ved. páśu ‘id.’), hence no VL alternants
(Kiparsky 2010)
fairguni (n -ja-) ‘mountain’ (22x, nom sg only Gal 4:25B; invariably translates Gk. óros ‘id.’) =
ON fjorgyn (f) ‘Mother Earth’ (the mother of Thor), OE firgen (n) ‘mountain, mountain
woodland’, OHG Firgunnea (f) ‘Ore Mountains’ < Gmc. *fergunja- < dial. IE *perkw-n-yé-.
Beyond that the etymology is among the most disputed. The original meaning may have
been ‘mountainous forest’ (cf. Celt. Lat. Hercynia silva ‘Hercynian Forest’) and related to
ferhwa- ‘oak’, Lat. quercus ‘oak tree’, etc. (Meid 1993: 274; EDPG 136; pace EDL 506; wider
possibilities in GED 104f.; Neri 2003: 202–7; NWG 331)
*fast-u/ja- (adj -u- / WGmc -ja-) ‘fast, firm, solid’ > ON fastr, OS fast, festi, OHG festi, OE fæst
fast [*past- ‘solid, firm’ AHDR 61f.], traditionally derived from *po-sth2-o- ‘standing firm’
(GPA 192, HGE 94f.), but Arm. hast ‘firm, steady; tough’ points to *pHst-i-, possibly from
*ph2(g)-sth2-, compounded of *peh2g- ‘be(come) firm’ and *steh2- ‘stand’ (EDPG 131)
faur(a) (adv, P + dat) ‘before; in front (of)’ = ON fyr ‘in front of, before, for’, OS for(a) ‘id.’,
OHG furi ‘id.’, OE for(e) ‘id.’ < Gmc. *fur(a)i < PIE *pr-h2-(e)í (cf. Gk. pará / paraí ‘near’)
[*per-1 ‘through, for(th), forward’] (AHDR 65, HGE 119, LSDE 306, EDPG 161); more likely,
a separate root [*prh2ó ‘up front, forward, in front, before’]: Goth. faur < *prh2í ‘in front;
for’, faura < *prh2ó-h1 ‘ahead, before’ (LIPP 2.650f.)
faus* (dat sg n fawamma) ‘little’, fawai (nom pl m) ‘few’ = ON fár ‘id.’, OS fā* (dat pl fōhem)
‘id.’, OHG fao, fō ‘id.’, OE fēa (pl fēawe) ‘little; few’ < Gmc. *fawa- < *ph2w-o- EDPG 132 or
*ph2-ewo- Neri 2009: 6 [*peh2-u- ‘few, little’]; cf. Lat. paucus ‘little; few’ (EDL 450f.; cf. AHDR
62, HGE 96)
fidwor / fidur- ‘four’ (§§2.7, 3.29, 7.23) = Crim. fyder (§1.2) < PGmc. *fedwōr / *fedur- < PIE
neut *kwetw r / *kwetw/ur-, with change of */kw/ to /f/ probably by analogy with fimf ‘five’
< *pénkwe (LHE2 67, 91, 93, 114, 123, 140f., 172, 319). In WGmc. the voiced fricative *[ð]
assimilated to the following /w/, and PGmc. */ō/ was unrounded before word-final /r/:
*feðwōr > *fewwōr > WGmc. *feuwar > OS fi(u)war* (e.g. acc fiu(u)uar, fior), OHG fior
(backformed to fiordo ‘fourth’), OE fēower (Stiles 1985–6, 2013; LHE2 93, see also GED 113f.,
HGE 96, EDPG 133)
figgrs* (m -a-) ‘finger’ (1x acc pl figgrans Mk 7:33) = ON fingr, OE finger, OS, OHG fingar
< Gmc. fingra- ‘finger’, related to *pénkwe ‘five’ (EDPG 141) < *pēnkwró- ‘of the set of five’, a
vrddhi derivative of *penkwerom ‘the set of five’, substantivized from post-PIE *penkwero-
‘five-fold’, e.g. Lith. penkerì (pl tant) ‘five’ (Majer 2017)
filu (adv) ‘much; very’ (n -u-) ‘copious amount’ = ON fjol- ‘very’, cf. OE fela / feala / feola ‘many,
much’ (indeclinable neuter; also adj, rarely inflected), OS, OHG filu, filo ‘id.’ < Gmc. *felu
(Groscurth 1930: 61; HGE 98) = OIr. il ‘much; mass, quantity’ < *pélh1-u (Heidermanns
1996: 258; Neri 2003: 208f.; 2009: 9; LHE2 96); cf. PIE n *pólh1-u : gen *plh1éu-s; cf. Gk. polú
‘much’ (EDPG 136, w. lit; slightly different in details IEL 290f., IS 425)
532 Appendix: Supplemental information
finþan* (str 3) ‘find out, discover, learn’ = ON finna ‘find’, OS fīðan (and rebuilt findan) ‘find (out),
perceive, discover, meet’, OHG findan ‘id.’, OE (rebuilt) findan find < *finþan- < *fenþan-
< IE *pént-e- [*pent- ‘find (a way)’] (AHDR 65, GED 117, HGE 99, LIV 471f., EDPG 142)
fisks* (m -a-) ‘fish’ (attested only in plural) = ON fiskr, OS fisk, OHG fisc, OE fisc < Gmc. *fiskaz
< dial. IE *pisk-o- [*peisk- / *pisk- ‘fish’]; cf. Lat. piscis ‘fish’ (AHDR 63, HGE 103, LSDE 305,
EDPG 142, LHE2 117)
*fliugan (str 2) ‘fly’ = ON fljúga ‘id.’, OHG fliugan, fliogan ‘id.’, OE flēogan, flēag, flugon, flogen
‘fly’ < Gmc. *fleug-an- < dial. IE *pléuk-e- [*pleuk- ‘swim’, Baltic-Gmc. enlargement of *pleu-
‘flow’]; cf. Lith. plaũkti, plaukiù ‘swim, float’ (AHDR 68, HGE 106, LIV 488, EDPG 146)
fon (n heteroclite stem) ‘fire’: gen funins, dat funin; cf. ON funi / fýrr, OE fȳr fire < Gmc.
*fu(n)ōn / *fuwer / *fūr (Gk. pũr ‘fire’ GED 120, HGE 119, 121) < IE *péh2wōr / *ph2un-
‘a burning mass, a fire’ (beside *péh2-wr / *ph2-wén- ‘fire’: Nussbaum 2014: 296f.) > *fōwōr /
*fun- (or with generalized zero grade *ph2uōr > *fwōr) ⇒ *fwōn > fon (Neri 2016: 11; cf.
LHE2 147, 162, 309; differently EDPG 151)
fotus (m -u-) ‘foot’, reassigned to the -u- stems partly because of the coincidence of (at least)
acc sg and pl with -u- stems and the higher frequency of the latter (Kahle 1887: 6–12; VG
494; NWG 193; Yoon 2009: 114; LHE2 105) and partly because of body parts like handus
‘hand’ (Bloomfield 1891: 13; MUN 198; Griepentrog 1995: 155; Casaretto 2006: 142f.; Yoon
2009: 115; Thöny 2013: 128ff.; Adamczyk 2013: 279), but inherited as a -C- stem (PIE *p d-s /
*pód- / *ped-´ (§8.2, with lengthened grade generalized: Griepentrog 1995: 153–83, EDPG
152, LHE2 91), as in ON fótr; cf. OE fōt (-a- stem), OHG fuoz (-i- stem sg), and OS fōt*
(-C-/-i- stem: OSD 104)
fraihnan (str 5) ‘ask’ = ON fregna ‘hear of, be informed of; ask’, OS fregnan ‘ask’, gi-fregnan
‘hear tell of, learn about’, OE ge-frignan / ge-frīnan (str 3) ‘learn’ (originally by inquiry), ‘hear
of ’; cf. frignan / frīnan ‘ask, inquire’ < *freg/h-n-an- [*pre - ‘ask’] with a -ne- present in
Gothic generalized to other tenses in OS, OE (LIV 490f., EDPG 154)
fra-ïtan* (str 5 §5.9) ‘eat up, devour, consume’ (of animals and, probably by extension [Patrick
Stiles, p.c.], of greedy humans) = OE ‘devour’, of eating by animals; cf. OHG frezzan ‘id.’ and
the German contrast between essen and fressen, or Dutch eten and freten (GED 129). The
verb *fr(a)-etan- ‘eat up’ is a prefixed form of *etan- (Goth. itan ‘eat’, q.v.) with Gmc. *fra-
[*pró ‘forward, in front’], hence *pro h1ed- (LIPP 2.646)
fraþjan (str 6) ‘think, perceive, understand’ < *proty-e- ‘reply, retort’ [*próti ‘to; against; back’]
(LIPP 2.655, 659; for the Lithuanian cognates, see also Leont’ev 1965: 258; GED 126)
frauja (m -n-) ‘lord, master’: when signifying the Christian God it is always abbreviated in the
• • • •
MSS: nom fa ( frauja), gen fins ( fraujins), dat fin ( fraujin), acc fan ( fraujan) (GGS 20).
Genitive and dative plural are unattested.
Relatives include OS frōio* (nom fraho/froho, etc.) ‘Lord’; cf. ON Freyr (m -ja-) (deity
name), OS, OHG frō (m -an-) ‘lord, master; Lord’, OE frēa (m -an-) ‘id.’ < Gmc. *fraw(j)a(n)-,
traditionally derived from dial. IE *prō-w(o)-yo- built on IE *per-/ *pro- ‘forward’ (Laird
1940: 11–16, GED 126f., AHDR 65, HGE 112), but that should have given Gmc.*frōjan- (EDPG
153), unless the laryngeal in *proHu-(y)o- disappeared without trace, yielding *prou(y)o- >
*frau(j)a(n)-. Dunkel reconstructs simply *pro-wo- with a -jan- derivative (LIPP 2.645)
frijon (wk 2) ‘love’ (translates Gk. agapãn, phileĩn ‘to love, be friendly, kindly disposed toward’)
= ON fría (2x in the Elder Edda) ‘show affection; make love’ / frjá (1x in a collection of
proverbs) ‘to fondle, caress’ (Sturtevant 1941), OS frīon* ( friehan Heliand 1451C) ‘to love’ (in
the context of ‘loving one’s neighbor’), OE frēogan, ‘honor, like, love’ < Gmc. *fri(j)ōn- < IE
Appendix: Supplemental information 533
*priH-eh2- [*preiH- LIV 490] (EDPG 155). Dunkel derives it from *pr(o/i) ‘forward, before’,
hence denom *prii̯-eh2-yó- (LIPP 2.642, 647)
froþs (frod-) (adj -a-) ‘intelligent, wise’ = ON fróðr ‘knowing, learned’, OS frōd ‘learned, wise’,
OHG fruot ‘skilful; beloved’, OE frōd ‘wise, prudent, skilful’ < Gmc. *frōþ/ðaz (GED 126,
HGE 115, VG 290, EDPG 156) < dial. IE *prōt-ó- [?*pret- ‘recognize’] (LIV 493), a thematic
adjective to a barytone noun (cf. Lith. prõtas ‘understanding’), hence the oxytone accent which
became mobile in Germanic, predicting the variants with and without VL (Kiparsky 2010)
fugls* (m -a-) ‘bird, fowl’ = ON fogl, fugl, OS fugal* (gen fugles, nom pl fuglos, etc.), OHG fogal,
fogil, OE fugol, fugel ‘bird’ < Gmc. *fuglaz possibly by dissimilation from *flug-laz < *pluk-ló-
[*pleu-k- ‘flow’]; cf. Gmc. *fleug-an- ‘to fly’; see *fliugan ‘fly’ and cf. OE flugol ‘apt to fly, fly-
ing swiftly’ (HGE 108, 116, EDPG 157; skeptical Grienberger 1900: 76, AHDR 68; NWG 399
*puk-lo-)
fulls (adj -a-) ‘full’ = ON fullr, OS ful(l), OHG fol, OE full < Gmc. *fulla- ‘full’ < earlier *ful-na-
< IE *plh1-nó- ‘filled, full’ [*pleh1- ‘fill’ LIV 482f.]; cf. Ved. pūrná- ‘full’ (IEL 285, NWG 312,
LSDE 151, 160, IS 421, EDL 472f., EDPG 159, LHE2 101, 165)
gaggan (irreg, suppl) ‘go’ = ON ganga ‘id.’, OE gangan, gongan ‘id.’, OS, OHG gangan ‘id.’ < IE
iterative-causative *ghongh-éye- [*ghengh- ‘stride’] (LIV 175; cf. GED 137f., 202f., EDPG 167)
(faihu)-gairns ‘covetous, avaricious’, ON gjarn ‘eager, willing’, OS gern ‘desiring’, OHG gern
‘eager’, OE georn ‘eager, ardent, careful’ (cf. the verb yearn) < Gmc. *gernaz < dial. IE
*gher(h1)-no- [*gher- ‘like, desire’ or *gherh1- EDPG 175] (Grienberger 1900: 85, GPA 242,
AHDR 30, HGE 132); cf. gairnjan* ‘long for, desire’ (LIV 176f.)
gaits (Neh 5:18) ‘goat’ [probably f -C- NWG 40]: the Hebrew text has wǝ-sipporīm ‘and birds’,
followed in the English versions; the Greek Septuagint has ‘(male) goat’,5 whence
the Gothic. The Visigothic word was borrowed into Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan as
gaita ‘bagpipe’, likely made from a goatskin (Acosta 2011: 137); cf. gaitein ‘young kid’ (§8.30)
and the cognates in the rest of Germanic: ON geit ‘she-goat’, OS gēt ‘id.’, OHG geiz ‘id.’, OE
gāt ‘id.’ (> goat) < late IE *ghah2i-d(o)- ‘horned animal’ (Neri 2016: 13) or more simply *ghaid-
(LHE2 121); cf. Lat. haedus ‘young goat-buck, kid’; generally taken to be a loanword (GED
141f., EDL 278, EDPG 163f.)
ga-leikon (wk 2) ‘liken, compare; resemble, imitate’ = ON líka ‘make equal’, OHG līchōn, līhhōn
‘to smooth(en)’ < Gmc. *(ga-)līkōjan-, deadjectival to (Goth.) galeiks ‘similar’
ga-leiks (adj -a-) ‘like’ = ON (g)líkr ‘like, resembling; likely’, OS gi-līk ‘like, alike, equal, similar,
the same’, OHG gi-līh ‘same, similar’ (> Germ. gleich), OE ge-līc ‘like, alike, similar’ < Gmc.
*(ga-)līkaz < *leig-o-, a Baltic-Germanic root; cf. Lith. lýgus ‘even, equal, like’ (EDPG 336f.;
cf. AHDR 49, GED 230f., HGE 247f.)
ga-leiþan (str 1) ‘come, go’ = ON líða ‘go, pass by/away, elapse’, OS līthan ‘go, leave’, OHG līdan
‘go, pass, tolerate, suffer’, OE līðan ‘go, travel, sail, vanish’ < Gmc. *līþan- ‘go (by), pass’ < IE
*léit-e- [*leit- ‘go (forth/down)’] (AHDR 48, EDPG 340)
ga-munds* (f -i-) ‘memory; memorial; mention’ (§8.9) = ON mynd ‘shape, form, image’, OE
ge-mynd ‘memory, remembrance, mind’, OHG gi-munt ‘recollection, memory, remembrance’
< Gmc. *mundiz < IE *mn-tí- [*men- ‘think’]; cf. Ved. matí- ‘thinking, thought’ (Lundquist
2015: 62); for the prefixed form cf. Lith. at-mintìs ‘pondering’ (but also mintìs ‘thought’),
OCS pa-mętĭ ‘memory, monument’, Lat. ā-mēns ‘insane’, dē-mēns ‘mad, demented’ (Vine
5 There was apparently confusion with Hebr. ṣāpîr ‘goat’, as in Daniel 8:5, 8 ṣǝpîr hā’izzîm ‘the he-goat’
stemming from a text with different (or no) vowel points (Galia Hatav, p.c., thanking Elitzur A. Bar-Asher
Siegal, chair of the Department of Hebrew Studies at the Hebrew University).
534 Appendix: Supplemental information
2004: 371, LSDE 97, EDL 372; for Germanic more generally: AHDR 54, VG 438, HGE 275,
NWG 503, EDPG 375)
gards (m -i-) ‘house; enclosure, yard’ (cf. garda* [m -n-] ‘courtyard, pen’ only acc sg gardan
lambe Jn 10:1 ‘fold of sheep’); originally an -a- stem (cf. Yoon 2009: 112) as in the rest of
Germanic (cf. Snædal 2009a: 163): ON garðr ‘garden, court, yard’, OS gard ‘garden; house,
dwelling; world’, OHG (boum-)gart ‘garden, orchard’, OE geard ‘enclosure, dwelling, land,
yard’ < Gmc. *gardaz ‘enclosure, court, yard’ < post-PIE *ghordho-; cf. Lith. gardas ‘fold,
pen’, OCS gradŭ ‘fence, town’ (AHDR 30, GED 147, HGE 126, NWG 179, EDPG 169, LHE2
109) < dial. IE *gh(o)r-tó- ‘enclosed’ [*gher- ‘enclose’]; cf. Gk. khórtos ‘enclosure’, Lat. hortus
‘garden’ (Miller 1977a; LSDE 60, 301; cf. EDL 290f.; Rübekeil 2010: 269f.)
gasts (m -i-) ‘stranger’ = runic -gastiz ‘guest’, ON gestr guest, OS gast ‘enemy, guest’, OHG gast
‘guest, stranger’, OE giest ‘stranger, guest, enemy’ < Gmc. *gastiz ‘stranger, guest’ < IE *ghósti-
‘stranger, guest, host’ (AHDR 31, HGE 127f., LSDE 301, 392, EDPG 170, LHE2 117, 171)
ga-suljan* (wk 1) ‘lay the foundation, found’: even if related to ON sylla ‘furnish with a sill’ is
probably akin to or borrowed from Lat. solum ‘bottom; ground; base’ and a calque on Gk.
themelioũn ‘lay the foundation of ’; pass ‘have the foundation laid’, denom to themélios
‘for the foundation’ (cf. GED 149, HGE 385); prob of a different origin from sauls (2x) ‘pillar’
(cf. EDPG 491, ignoring ga-suljan*)
giba (f -ō-) ‘gift’ = ON gjof, OS (acc/gen sg) ge a, geba, OHG geba, OE giefu ‘id.’ < Gmc. *gebō
< PIE *ghebh-éh2 [*ghebh- ‘give’] (AHDR 28, HGE 130, LHE 279, EDPG 173)
giban (str 5) ‘give’ = ON gefa give, OS ge an ‘id.’, OHG geban ‘id.’, OE gi(e)fan ‘id.’ < PGmc.
*geb-an- < PIE *ghébh-e- [*ghebh- ‘give’] (AHDR 28, HGE 130, LIV 193); since *h1ep- seems
only to mean ‘seize’, a less cogent proposal is the restructuring of *ga-ef- < *ko(m)-h1ep-,
parallel to Lat. coēpī ‘seized’ (EDPG 173, w. lit)
goþs (adj -a-) ‘good’ (most often translates Gk. agathós ‘good’ and, especially in the aesthetic
sense, kalós ‘beautiful, good’: Weinacht 1928: 13f.) = ON góðr, OS god /gōd/, OHG guot, OE gōd
< Gmc. *gōdaz ‘good’ < dial. IE ?*ghōdh-o- ‘fitting; suitable’ [?*ghedh- ‘unite, join, fit’] (GED
158, GPA 251, AHDR 28, HGE 138, EDPG 162, 184). Connection to Gk. agathós ‘strong, brave,
good’ has been proposed, but the etymology of that is highly uncertain. Numerous proposals,
including *h2gh(e)h2dh-, are discussed in Miller (1977b: 134, 153), to which can be added the
semantically difficult *mgh2-dhh1-o- ‘made great’ or ‘whose deeds are great’ (e.g. Hackstein
2002: 18, w. lit); variant forms of this word exhibit several pre-Greek properties (EDG 7)
gulþ* (n -a-) ‘gold’ = ON gull/goll, OS gold (acc), OHG gold, OE gold < Gmc. *gulþa- / *gulda-
< dial. IE *ghl(h3)-to- ‘gilded, golden’ [*ghelh3- ‘bright-colored (yellow); shine’]; cf. Lith.
želtas ‘golden’ (GED 162f., MUN 77, AHDR 29, HGE 145f., NWG 432, LHE 270, EDPG 194),
an original barytone, i.e. accented on the first syllable (Kiparsky 2010)
•
guþ (m -a-) ‘god; God’ (§3.3): the Christian God is always abbreviated in the MSS: nom/acc gþ,
• •
gen gþs, dat gþa, with þ from the nom, despite gen gudis, dat guda (Hench 1896;
•
Ebbinghaus 1961). In Skeireins, most of the abbreviations except for gþa are followed by a
period as well (GGS 20). Guþ is inflected like a neuter and the rare occurrences of the plural
have the neuter form guda (nom Jn 10:34, Gal 4:8A, acc Jn 10:35), spelled out except in the
Galatians passage (GG 94). It is possibly neuter when used of pagan gods (Velten 1930: 490;
Rousseau 2012: 291; 2016: 619) but, although Hench (1896) argues for masculine, there is
no direct internal evidence for the gender of the plural forms (GG 93f.). For instance, in
jabai jainans qaþ guda (Jn 10:35) ‘if he called them gods’, the masc gender of jainans has no
bearing on guda.
Appendix: Supplemental information 535
Hatto (1944, 1946) claims that guþ- was generalized to all forms for the Christian God as
a hieratic tabu, but the stem was gud(a)- (not *guþ(a)-) on the evidence of pl guda and all
derivatives, e.g. gudisks* ‘godly’, afgudei* ‘ungodliness’, gudja ‘priest’, gudalaus* ‘godless’, etc.
Relatives include ON guð (m/n), OE god (n), OS god (m), OHG got/cot (m), which point
to Gmc. *guda- (Laird 1940: 1–11, 17, 57–60), although Gothic may have traces of a consonant
stem (§7.3). Beyond that, the etymology is unclear but it is generally agreed that traditional
*ghu-tó- ‘libated’ or *ghuH-tó- ‘invoked’ (AHDR 31, HGE 145, Harðarson 2005) are to be
rejected (NWG 431f.), possibly in favor of *gwhu-tó- ‘revered’, from the root *gwheu- in OCS
gověti ‘to revere’ (EDPG 193f.)
hafjan* (str 6) ‘raise, lift’ = ON hefja ‘raise, lift, heave; exalt; begin; take’, OS hebbian* ‘lift up;
exalt’ (inf e.g. a-hebbian ‘extol, exalt’), heffian* (in af-heffian ‘lift off, begin’), OHG heffen,
heven ‘heave’, OE hebban ‘lift up, raise’ < Gmc. *hafjan-/*habjan- ‘lift, raise’ < IE *kh2p-yé-
[*keh2p- ‘grasp’, traditional *kap-]; cf. Lat. capiō ‘I take’ (EWDS 362, AHDR 37, LIV 344f.,
HGE 149, LSDE 302, EDL 90, EDPG 198, LHE2 98)
1. hāhan* (str 7) ‘suspend, keep dangling’ (i.e. ‘keep in doubt, keep wondering’) = OHG hāhan
‘hang’, OE hōn ‘id.’ < PGmc. *hanhan- /xąxaną/ ‘hang’ < *kónk-e- [*kenk- ‘hang’ LIV 325];
cf. Ved. śánkate ‘hesitates, is indecisive, worries’, Hitt. kānk- / kank- ‘hang; weigh’ (Jasanoff
2003: 72ff.; EDHIL 437f., EDPG 208, LHE2 108, 171, 174, where Goth. hāhan* is incorrectly
glossed ‘suspend (judgment)’; see 1.hāhan* §5.11)
hails (adj -a-) ‘healthy’ = ON heill ‘sound, whole, healed; blessed; upright’, OS hēl ‘healthy;
unharmed’, OHG heil ‘whole, healthy, unscathed’, OE hāl ‘in good health, whole, well, sound,
safe’ < Gmc. *hailaz < European *koi-lo- ‘whole’; even if a substratum word (Boutkan 2003: 20),
cf. Gk. koĩlu ‘goodness, beauty’ (Hesychius), OCS cělŭ ‘whole’ (EDPG 200, LHE2 107; Ganina
2001: 72–8; cf. GPA 268, GED 169f., AHDR 36, HGE 151f., LSDE 46, 127); cf. (ga)hailjan
(wk 1) ‘heal, cure’ = OS helean /hēlian/, OHG heilen, OE hælan ‘heal’; cf. hailag (§8.31)
haims* (f -i- / pl -ō- §3.3) ‘village’, pl ‘villages, lands’: the f -ō- pl has been attributed to asso-
ciation with baurgs ‘city’ (Yoon 2009: 118f.), but Bjorvand (1994: 56, 146ff.) convincingly
argues that the plural was the reflex of a collective (see Thöny 2013: 250–3). Relatives include
ON heimr (m -a-) ‘abode, region, world’, OS hem /hēm/ (n -a-) ‘(ancestral) home, dwelling’,
OHG heim (adv) ‘home(wards)’ and -heim (cf. heima (f) ‘home, house, dwelling’), OE hām
(m) ‘id.’ (> home) < Gmc. *haima/iz, usually taken from [*tkei- ‘settle, dwell, be at home’]
(AHDR 92, HGE 152, LIV 643f., NWG 388f.), or dial. IE *koi-mo- [*kei- ‘lie’] (EDPG 201),
which itself may be a departicle root (LIPP 2.414, w. lit), or directly from the particle *key-
‘this; here’ (LIPP 2.412)
hairto (n -n-) ‘heart’ = ON hjarta ‘heart; mind, feeling’, OS herta ‘heart’, OHG herza ‘id.’, OE
heorte (f) ‘id.’ < Gmc. *hert-ō-(n-) ‘heart’ (with an -n- extension: Thöny 2013: 100) < PIE
*kérd- / *krd- (cf. Lat. cord-, Gk. kardíā ‘heart’) (GED 171, MUN 175, HGE 170, EDL 134f.,
EDPG 222, Pronk 2015: 340, LHE2 107, 115)
handus (f -u-) ‘hand’ = ON hond (f -C-) ‘hand’, OS hand ‘hand, side’, OHG hant ‘hand; protec-
tion, power’, OE hond, hand (> hand) < Gmc. *handu- ‘hand; protection, power’ (Lloyd &
Lühr 2009: iv. 814–17; Neri 2013: 198); further connections doubtful (HGE 159) but an imme-
diate *k/kont-ú- is plausible, if derived from the Germanic verb *hinþan- ‘reach for’ (e.g.
Groscurth 1930: 49; VEW 255; Rousseau 2012: 99; EDPG 207, 227); also suggested is a
derivative of *kom dheh1- ‘put together’ (LIPP 2.427)
hauhs* (adj -a-) ‘high’ = ON hár, OS, OHG hōh, OE hēa, heah high < Gmc. *hauh-a- ‘high’
< IE *kóuk-o- (GPA 286, HGE 166); Sw. høg ‘high’ points to a VL variant *haug-a- < *kouk-ó-;
536 Appendix: Supplemental information
cf. ON haugr ‘hill’, Lith. kaũkas ‘bump, swelling’ (EDPG 215); cf. hauhjan (wk 1) ‘exalt,
praise, glorify’
haurn (acc) (n -a-) ‘horn’ (§8.28) = runic horna (Kr 43, ORI 23; MacLeod & Mees 2006: 176f.;
Markey 2012: 93f.), ON, OS (e.g. here-horn [army-horn] ‘war-trumpet’), OHG, OE horn
‘horn’ < Gmc. *hurn-a- < dial. IE kr-no-m [*kr- ‘bone, horn’; collective *ker-h2- ‘horns’ >
‘head’ (>*ker-h2-s-n- after ‘ear’ §8.24); *ker-n- ‘individual horn’]; cf. Galatian carnom*
‘trumpet’ written kárnon in Hesychius (DLG 91), Lat. cornū ‘id.’ (GED 180, AHDR 40, HGE
195, NWG 320, LSDE 302, EDL 136f., EDPG 259; Pronk 2015: 336f., LHE2 101, 115)
hausjan (wk 1) ‘hear, listen, obey’: Gothic alone has /s/ vs. */z/ in the other dialects (Bernharðsson
2001: 228–31): ON heyra, OHG hōren, OS horian /hōrian/, OE hīeran ‘hear (of)’; [+dat]
‘listen to, obey’ < Gmc. *hauz-jan- < post-PIE *h2kous-ye- (EDPG 217; cf. AHDR 44, GED
180f., HGE 167) or a compound *h2k-h2ows-yé- ‘be sharp-eared’; cf. Gk. akoúō ‘I hear’ (LHE
71, 119; LHE2 16, 89, 108, 144, 189)
himins (m -a-) ‘sky, heaven’ (Laird 1940: 37–41) = ON himinn (dat hifne < *hi nē < *himnē; cf.
Ralph 2002: 716), OS he an, himil, OHG himil (by dissimilation), OE heofon heaven < Gmc.
*hemin-a- / *hemna- < IE *h2ék-mon- / *h2k-mn- ‘(vault of) heaven; stone’ [*h2ek- ‘sharp’];
cf. Ved. áśman- ‘stone, rock, heaven’ (EWAia 1.137f.; AHDR 2, HGE 169, EDPG 220)
hlaifs / hlaibs (m -a-) ‘bread; loaf ’: Crim. broe (§1.2) is supposedly ‘leavened bread’ vs. Goth.
hlaifs ‘unleavened bread’ (Rousseau 2016: 635), but hlaifs is both a count and a mass noun
and has several meanings: ‘leavened and unleavened bread; loaf (of bread), bread (as food
substance)’ and rarely ‘fragment, morsel, crumb’ (Pons-Sanz 2017)
Relatives include ON hleifr ‘loaf ’, OHG (h)leib, leip ‘id.’, OE hlāf loaf < Gmc. *hlaibaz
(further connections doubtful: HGE 173f., EDPG 228)
hlauts (m -a-) ‘lot’ (2x, 1 dupl), ‘inheritance’ (2x, 1 dupl): wairpandans hlauta (Mk 15:24) ‘casting
a lot’, hlauts imma urrann du saljan (Lk 1:9) ‘the lot fell to him to sacrifice’; du dailai hlautis
(Col 1:12A/B) ‘for a share of the inheritance’, in þammei hlauts gasatidai wesum (Eph
1:11A/B) ‘in whom we were established (as God’s) inheritance/destiny’ (Laird 1940: 124–7;
Pausch 1954: 57f.)
Congeners include ON hlautr (1x) ‘lot’, OS hlōt (acc pl hlotos) ‘id.’, OHG (h)lōz ‘id.’ < Gmc.
*hlauta- ‘lot’ (hlauts is also thought to be an -i- stem like OE hlīet ‘lot, share; sacrifice’ NWG
180), -o- grade derivative to *hleutan- ‘obtain by lot’, a Baltic-Germanic root (EDPG 230)
hors (m -a-) ‘adulterer’ = ON hórr ‘id.’; cf. f -ōn: ON hóra ‘whore’, OHG huora ‘id.’ (and huorra
< *hōrjōn), OE hōre whore < *hōraz / *hōrōn ‘lover; adulterer’ < IE *kéh2-ro- [*keh2- ‘love,
like, desire’]; cf. Lat. cārus ‘dear’ (AHDR 36, GED 190, HGE 182, LIV 343, EDPG 240, LHE2
90, 172)
hrains (adj -i-) ‘clean’ = ON hreinn, OS hreni /hrēni/, OHG (h)reini ‘pure’ < Gmc. *hrain-i-
‘clean’ < *kroi-ni- (HGE 183) or more likely *kroi-ni-: GED 190, GPA 302f., EDPG 241, com-
paring Lat. cernō ‘sift, distinguish, decide’, etc. < *kri-n- [*kreh1(y)- ‘sift, separate’ LIV 366f.]
(EDL 110)
hunsl (acc) (n -a-) ‘offering, sacrifice’ (§8.31) = ON húsl ‘id.’, OE hūsel ‘id.’ < Gmc. *hunsla-,
usually reconstructed from *kunt-slo- (EDPG 256f.) but other etymologies have been pro-
posed, and the one with the best semantic parallels seems to be *kns-(s)la- to the IE root
*kens- ‘appraise, value, esteem’ (LIV 326), hence ‘venerate’, then ‘sacrifice’ (Kölligan 2002)
huzd (n -a-) ‘hoard, treasure’ = ON hodd (f), OS hord, horth (n), OHG hort (m/n) OE hord
(m/n) < Gmc. *huzda- < *hudzda- < *kudh-dhó- < *kudh-tó- ‘hidden’ (Meid 1964: 238f.)
[*keudh- LIV 358]; cf. Gk. keúthein ‘to hide’, kústhos ‘cunt’ (LIV 359; rejected for *kus-dho-
Appendix: Supplemental information 537
in NWG 461, LHE2 115; accepted in EDPG 260; for discussion of Bartholomae’s Law and
roots like *keu-dh- see Miller 1977a)
airban* (str 3) ‘go around, circulate, walk, live’ = ON hverfa ‘turn (round); be lost, vanish,
disappear’, OS huer an, huerban ‘turn (about); walk around; go; return’, OE hwe(o)rfan ‘turn,
revolve; change; exchange; barter’ < Gmc. *hwerban- ‘turn, move around’ [*kwerpH- ‘turn’
LIV 392f.] (cf. EWDS 893, HGE 200), or possibly just a European root *kwérp-e- (EDPG 265)
an (adv) ‘when; how’: interrogative and exclamative, as in þata riqiz an filu (Mt 6:23) ‘how
great that darkness (is)!’ (Feuillet 2014: 37) = OS hwan ‘when’, OE hwan / hwon ‘when’ < Gmc.
*hwan, usually reconstructed from IE *kwo-m [*kwo- interrog-indf prn]; cf. Lat. quom /
cum ‘when’ (AHDR 46, GED 198, HGE 198, LHE 85), but IE had an adverb *kwóna, as in dial.
Lith. kanà ‘whither’ (LIPP 2.481)
arjis ‘who, which?’ = ON hverr ‘who?’ < Gmc. *hwar-ja-z (GED 198, HGE 198) < *kwór h2yó-
(LIPP 2.471, 478)
as, a, o, ‘who’ (§3.17) < Gmc. *hwaz (etc.) [*kwo- interrog-indf prn] > OE hwā who (GED
198, HGE 199, EDPG 261; LIPP 2.455–8). The indefinite function (Behaghel 1917) contrasts
with definite sums (q.v. below)
eits* (adj -a-) ‘white’ = ON hvítr, OS hu(u)it /hwīt/, OHG hwīz, OE hwīt white < PGmc.
*hwītaz < pre-Gmc. *hwītta- < IE *kweit-nó- by Kluge’s Law [*kweit- ‘shine’]; cf. Ved. śvítna-
‘white, whitish’, śvetá- ‘white, bright’ (EDPG xxxiv, 267; see also AHDR 45, GED 200, GPA
316f., HGE 201f., LIV 340)
iba(i) (59x, 11 dupl): clause-initial (except 2Cor 11:7B, Gal 5:13B) rhetorical question particle that
presupposes a contrary reply (GrGS 210; Ferraresi 2005: 143–6; Buzzoni 2009; cf. Streitberg
1920: 219), e.g. ibai þu maiza is attin unsaramma Abrahama (Jn 8:53) ‘are you greater than
our father Abraham?!’ (anticipated reply: ‘no’); a more accurate translation is: ‘(surely) you
aren’t greater than our father Abraham, are you?’; cf. ibai lisanda af þaurnum weinabasja
aiþþau af wigadeinom smakkans (Mt 7:16) ‘surely grapes are not picked from thorns or figs
from thistles, are they?’. The passive in this example translates a Greek active but imper-
sonal 3pl sullégousin ‘they pick; one picks’ (GrGS 140; Marold 1882: 27f.; Del Pezzo 1985: 132;
Klein 2011: 139f.). Burton (1996b: 94f.) discusses a Latin parallel and (the possibly Latin-
influenced) Gk. eklégontai ‘are picked out’ in codex Bezae.
ibai ( . . . ) ni anticipates an affirmative reply, e.g. ibai auk gardins ni habaiþ du matjan jah drig-
kan (1Cor 11:22A) ‘you do have houses for eating and drinking, don’t you?’
1. nibai (Q adv 3x) should be similar; cf. nibai aufto ungakusanai sijuþ (2Cor 13:5A) ‘you are not
actually untested/disqualified, are you?’. With the optative, uncertainty is expressed: nibai
usqimai sis silbin (Jn 8:22) ‘he isn’t going to kill himself, is he?’ (cf. GrGS 210; Douse 1886: 266)
By way of etymology, the source has been taken to be *e/i + dat sg *bhāi (Heidermanns
1996: 272), but *2.h2í bho-h1 (> iba), * 2.h2í bho(h1) ih1 (> ibai), *né bho-h1 (> niba), *né bho(h1)
ih1 (> nibai) account better for the semantics (LIPP 2.122f., 339, 348). Yet another possibility
is that bai in jabai, niba(i) may be an old thematic optative of the PIE verb *bhuh2- ‘grow,
be(come)’, i.e. niba(i) would have originally meant ‘it not be’ or the like (Klein 2011: 142).
Depending on the etymology, the different uses of ibai may relate to the compositional or
non-compositional analysis of the constituent particles (Kameneva 2017)
inn (adv) ‘in, within’ = ON inn ‘id.’, OS, OHG īn ‘id.’, OE inn ‘id.’ usually derived from
*in(d) < *end(e/a); cf. Goth. inna ‘inside, within’, and related to Gk. éndon ‘inside, within’
(cf. AHDR 23, GED 206, HGE 83f.), but *en-na has been proposed to contrast with *én-i >
in (LIPP 2.224f.)
538 Appendix: Supplemental information
innaþro (adv) ‘from within, inwardly’ from inna ‘within’ plus ablatival *-þrō, as in Goth. aþro
‘from where’, jainþro ‘from there’, iupaþro ‘from above’ (iup ‘upward; above’), etc. (§3.31)
itan (str 5) ‘eat’ < *et-an- [*h1ed- ‘eat’] (GED 121, 208, AHDR 22, EDPG 119, LHE2 89)
iþ (conj) (weakly adversative, marks change of subject) ‘but, yet, however’. Iþ has been com-
pared to Lat. autem in signaling a change of discourse topic (Marold 1881b: 9; Ferraresi
2005: 150–5), but change of subject is more accurate (cf. Rousseau 2016: 475f.). Klein (2018a)
demonstrates that semantically iþ covers a range from mere continuation to strongly adver-
sative relationships. It occurs 626x in the Bible (Köbler 1989) and joins clauses and NPs. The
count by Friedrichsen (1961a) is dated but gives a useful approximation of the distribution:
iþ occurs 531x by itself, 22x with other particles, and 13x (without jabai ‘if ’) in the protasis
of a conditional (ibid. 151). It mostly translates Gk. dé ‘but, and’: 51x in Mt, 89x in Jn, 95x in
Mk, and 96x in Lk (ibid. 105); of the 18 correspondents of dé, iþ is number 2 (Rousseau 2012:
217). It also translates Gk. oũn ‘now, then’, gár ‘for’ (Marold 1881b: 8f., 26f.), and kaí ‘and’
(Schaaffs 1904: 11ff.)
The alternant *ið- is an unstressed prefix ‘re-’, e.g. Goth. id-weit (acc Lk 1:25, 1Tim 3:7A)
‘disgrace’ (< *éti weid-), and possibly the disputed id-reigon ‘reform, repent’; ON ið-gjold
‘recompense’, OHG it-lōnōn ‘remunerate’, OE ed-cerr ‘return’ < Gmc. *eþ(i) / *ið- ‘beyond,
again’ < PIE *éti ‘beyond’ (Gk. éti ‘furthermore, besides, still’, Lat. et ‘and’) (cf. Grienberger
1900: 133f., AHDR 24, GED 208, HGE 82, LHE2 126, LIPP 2.262)
iusiza is an obscure comparative occurring only in ni und waiht iusiza ist skalka (Gal 4:1A),
which translates Gk. oudèn diaphérei doúlou ‘he differs not at all from a slave’ (§6.18). The
commonest translations suggested for the Gothic are ‘he is not at all better than a slave’ (e.g.
GED 209) or ‘he is not at all different from a slave’ (e.g. LHE2 317)
Gothic has several ways of translating Gk. diaphérei ‘differs’ (De Vaan 2007b: 11f.). For
instance, oudén moi diaphérei ‘it does not matter to me’ is rendered ni waiht mis wulþrais ist
(Gal 2:6A ~ wulþris B), lit. ‘is nothing of valuable to me’ (see wulþrs* below). A number of
Latin sources (e.g. Ambrosiaster, codd. Bezae, Palatinus) have nihil differt (Marold 1882: 24)
The most neutral meaning for iusiza is ‘other, different’ (De Vaan 2007b). One recon-
struction is *h1éus-is-on- (Lühr 2000a: 297), which is difficult to motivate from *h1(e)su-
‘good’ (on which see EDG 484f.). Iusiza has been connected with iusila (f -ō-) (2Cor
8:13A/B, 2Thess 1:7A) ‘relief, respite’ (GPA 179, NWG 105), both from a stem *ius-, which De
Vaan (2007b) derives from a full grade of us ‘from, out of ’ (see below). One potential prob-
lem is that *úd has no full grade *eud- anywhere in IE (LIPP 2.823–8)
jabai (conj) ‘if ’ and neg conditional jabai ni ~ niba(i) (Klein 2011: 141f.). See §§9.49–9.51. One
additional use should be mentioned, which is a Hebraism in Greek (ei ‘if ’ is here a quasi-
negative particle) directly imitated in Gothic (Wolfe 2018a):
amen qiþa izwis: jabai gibaidau kunja þamma taikne (Mk 8:12)
‘verily I say to you: there shall be no sign given to this generation’
[Gk. am n légō hūmĩn, ei doth setai tẽi geneãi taútēi sēmeĩon ‘id.’]
Relatives include OS ef, OHG ibu, OE gi(e)f (> if) < Gmc. ?*jaba, but Goth. jabai may
reflect dial. IE *Hyo-bh-ōi (HGE 204); another idea is that the second part is dat sg *bhāi
(Heidermanns 1996: 272); Dunkel derives jabai from a string of particles: *yó bho(h1) 3.h2i
with conditional 3.h2i (LIPP 2.122f.), but bai in jabai, niba(i) may be an old thematic optative
of the PIE verb *bhuh2- ‘grow, be(come)’, lit. ‘and it be, and be it’ (Klein 2011: 142), possibly
with Dunkel’s conditional particle (viz. *yó-bhuh2-oi-h2i > pre-Goth. *ja-bhu̯-ai-i ‘and if it be’)
Appendix: Supplemental information 539
jah ‘and, also, (and) even’ (sentence-initial conj with assimilatory variants jag, jab, jad, jal, jar,
jam, jan, jas, jaþ, esp. in MSS A, C, and Skeireins): a static connective that conveys simple
additive nexus; unlike -uh does not imply a sequence, unlike nu is not inferential, and
unlike þan does not signal continuation per se (Klein 2018a). It conjoins words, phrases, and
clauses. It is the most frequent word, occurring 3915x in the Gothic corpus less the Bologna
fragment (Köbler 1989). In the Gospels it translates Gk. kaí ‘and’ in 487 out of 494 examples
(Klein & Condon 1993: 2). A large number of kaí remain untranslated (Schaaffs 1904:
29–33), and in many cases jah is inserted in the absence of kaí (ibid. 33–7). Of the 18 cor-
respondents of Gk. dé, jah is number 7 (Rousseau 2012: 217)
Jah derives from ja (5x) ‘yes, indeed’ + -(u)h ‘and’ (q.v.); cf. OS, OHG ja ‘and’, OE ge, usu-
ally reconstructed *(H)yó-kwe (GED 210; Ivanov 1999; LHE 128), but *yó ‘and’ is not the same
as relative *h2yo- (LIPP 2.384f., 312)
A compounded form jaþþe 43x, 18x) occurs especially in the Epistles in the sense of Gk.
eíte, Lat. sīve ‘whether, or’, e.g. jaþþe slepaima jaþþe wakaima (1Thess 5:10B) ‘whether we are
asleep or awake’, jaþþe sitlos jaþþe fraujinassjus, jaþþe reikja jaþþe waldufnja (Col 1:16A/B)
‘whether thrones or lordships, or principalities or powers’ (cf. Collin 1876: 27f.; Sturtevant
1933b: 210f.)
jains (pronominal declension str -a- §3.4) ‘that (one)’ (distal deixis) = OHG (Otfrid) jenēr
‘that (one)’ (beside enēr in Notker), OE geon* (dat sg f geonre Cura Pastoralis 443.25) ‘that
(one); yon’ < Gmc. *jaina-, which Stiles (2018) cautiously derives from a locative *h1yoi +
*-no- comparing Gk. ekeĩ-no-s ‘that (person); he’ beside ekeĩ ‘there’ (other hypotheses in
Grienberger 1900: 135f., GED 210, HGE 204f.); since 1.*í- does not inflect thematically,
Dunkel reconstructs *yó 2.h2i 1.no- ‘and there-to over’ (LIPP 2.57, 386)
ja-u (9x, 5 dupl; 5x in 1Tim 5:10A/B) < ja + u (< *yó h2u LIPP 2.348; cf. ni-u): S-initial particle
with insistence ‘is it really the case that?; indeed’, e.g. jau barna fodidedi, jau gastins andnemi,
jau weihaim fotuns þwohi . . . (1Tim 5:10A/B) ‘she has surely raised children, lodged strangers,
washed the saints’ feet . . . ’, jau nu silba i(k) skalkino gahugdai witoda gudis (Rom 7:25A)
‘surely then I myself with (my) mind am a servant to God’s law’, jau ainshun þize reike
galaubidedi imma (Jn 7:48, Sk 8.3.1–4) ‘seriously, might any of the leaders actually have
believed in him?’ (§9.52)
jer (n -a-) ‘year’ = ON ár ‘id.’, OS, OHG jār ‘id.’, OE gēar year < Gmc. *jēr-a- < IE *yeh1-r-o-
[?*yeh1-]; cf. Gk. h rā ‘season’< *yoh1-r-eh2 (AHDR 102, GED 211, HGE 206, LIV 310, EDPG 273)
jū (adv) ‘just now, up to now, by now, already’: asserts a state at the time of the utterance and
that a prior event caused the state (Ferraresi 2018). Relatives include OS iu(u), giu(u) /jū/
‘already, once (before), formerly, still’, OHG jū, giu ‘id.’, OE iū, gū, gēo ‘formerly’ < IE loc
*h2yeu ‘in life’ [*h2óyu- / *h2eyu- / *h2yeu- ‘vital force, life, long life, age, eternity’]; cf. Lith.
jaũ ‘already’ (LIPP 2.352; cf. HGE 207, GED 212)
jū-þan (adv) ‘by then, by now, already’ occurs only in Mk (8x), Lk (3x), and Jn (4x). The
Epistles use only jū (18x, 5 dupl), which occurs only 2x in Mark.
juk* (n -a-) ‘yoke; pair, couple’ = ON ok ‘yoke’, OS iuk /juk/ ‘yoke (measurement of land)’,
OHG juh, joh ‘yoke’, OE geoc yoke < Gmc. *juk-a-n < PIE *yug-ó-m [*yeug- ‘yoke, join’]; cf.
Lat. iugum ‘yoke’ (AHDR 103, GED 212, HGE 207, LIV 316, EDPG 274, LHE2 104, 109)
kann (prt prs) ‘be acquainted, (get to) know (how)’, ON kann ‘know (how)’, OHG kann
‘id.’, OE can ‘id.’ < PGmc. *kann, earlier *kann-a/e from a new pf *gegónne to pre-PGmc.
*gunnāti (Mottausch 2013: 42; LHE2 178f.); there is no need for analogy (pace Randall &
Jones 2015: 166f.) [*gneh3- ‘recognize’] 1/3sg of 1.kunnan, q.v. (cf. HGE 210, LIV 168f.,
LHE 154)
540 Appendix: Supplemental information
lausjan (wk 1) ‘free, release’ = ON leysa ‘loose(n), untie; free, release; dismiss; solve; pay, pur-
chase’, OS losian /lōsian/ ‘remove, take off; pull up; loosen, free; deliver; redeem’, OHG lōsen
‘free, solve, redeem, deliver’, OE lī(e)san ‘loosen, free, release, redeem, deliver’ < Gmc.
*lausjan- ‘to free’, deadj to *lausa- ‘free’ (Goth. laus above), derived from *leusan- (see
-liusan) ‘lose’ (EDPG 329)
leik (n -a-) ‘body; flesh; fleshly body’ = ON lík ‘body’, OS līk ‘id.’, OHG līh ‘id.’, OE līc ‘id.’ <
Gmc. *līka- ‘body’; the original meaning was ‘likeness, shape’, derived from *līka- (see ga-
leiks) ‘like’ (EDPG 336)
leiks ‘(a)like’ (Bl 2v.18, ?22; previously unattested), but both occurrences are preceded by swa,
so a reading swaleiks is not excluded (Falluomini 2017); the existence of this adjective is
predicted internally from deadjectival verbs and externally from Lith. lýgus ‘similar’
(Schuhmann 2016: 70)
leitils ‘little’ = ON lítill, OS luttil (cf. luttic ‘little, small’), OHG luzzil, lūzil, OE lytel ‘little’; forms
without -ila- include OS lut / lūt ‘few’, OE lyt ‘little, few’ (but note ME lut, lutte) < *lūtja-,
*luttja-. The etymology is disputed but OIr. lútu ‘little finger’ is attractive. While Kroonen
takes *lītila- as the basic form (EDPG 339), it is more likely *lūt- / *lutt-, the diminutive suf-
fix and the radical /i/ being motivated iconic to the meaning (§8.43; see also mikils and GPA
371f., 390f., HGE 248, 252); also assuming the primacy of līt- (but explaining nothing else in
the word) is the derivation from IE [*lei-h2- ‘take away, decrease; fade’ LIV 406] (LIPP 2.493)
letan (in afletan ‘let go; leave’ etc.) (str 7) ‘let, allow, permit’ = ON láta, ‘let; set; give up; leave;
lose; say’, OS latan /lātan/ ‘let, allow; leave (up); release, let down’, OHG lāzzan ‘id.’, OE lætan
‘let, allow; let go, dismiss, leave; cause, make; place; profess; consider; treat’ < Gmc. *lētan-
[*leh1d- ‘let, leave’] (AHDR 47, LIV 400, HGE 244f., EDPG 332)
libains (f -i-) ‘life, living’/(n -a-) ON líf ‘life, body, man’, OS lif, li /līf/ ‘life; body’, OHG līb ‘id.’,
OE līf life < Gmc. *līban of disputed etymology (GED 232) but standardly derived from IE
*leip- ‘stick, adhere; remain’ (AHDR 48, HGE 245, 247, LIV 408)
ligan* (str 5) ‘lie, be lying down’ = ON liggja ‘lie, be lying down, be situated’, OS liggian ‘lie, be
(situated), remain, be laid up’, OHG ligan, lickan ‘id.’, OE licgan ‘lie, be situated, be in bed,
lie dead, lie low’ < Gmc. *leg(j)an- < IE *legh-(y)e/o- [*legh- ‘lie’ LIV 398] (EDPG 320)
ligrs* (m) ‘couch; sexual intercourse’; cf. n ON legr ‘bed’, OS legar ‘illness’, OHG legar ‘lair,
camp’, OE leger ‘lying, couch, lair’ < Gmc. *leg-ra- < *legh-ro- [*legh- ‘lie’ LIV 398] (HGE
240; cf. ligan* ‘lie’)
2. liugan* (str 2) ‘(tell a) lie’ = ON ljúga, OS liogan, OHG liugan / liogan, OE lēogan lie < Gmc.
*leugan- [*leugh- ‘tell a lie’, a European root] (AHDR 49, LIV 417, HGE 242, EDPG 333)
-liusan*, e.g. fra-liusan* (str 2) ‘lose’ = OS farliosan* (farliosen, farliesan, etc.) ‘lose, waste,
squander’, OHG farliosan ‘id.’, OE forlēosan ‘id.’ < Gmc. *(fra-)leus-an- < PIE desiderative
?*léuH-/*luh-s- [*leuH- LIV 417, traditional *leu-s- ‘loosen’] (LHE 218), or just an extension
of *leuh1- (EDPG 334, 345)
magan* (prt prs) ‘have power, be able’: 3sg mag = ON má, OS, OHG mag, OE mæg ‘can’
(> may) < PGmc. *mag, earlier *mag-e <?*me-móghe or orig present? (LHE2 179) [*mogh-
EDPG 373; cf. *magh- ‘be able’ LIV 422] (AHDR 50, HGE 252f.; see also Randall & Jones
2015: 163)
magaþs (f -i-) ‘virgin’ (always of the virgin Mary: nom magaþs Bl 2v.7, gen magaþais Lk 1:27,
dat magaþai Lk 1:27) = OE mæg(e)ð, OS magath* (magad, magat, acc magađ) ‘Virgin; young
woman; maid’, OHG magad ‘virgin, girl, maiden’ < PGmc. *mag-aþ(-i)-, deriv of magu-
(q.v.), but the origin of the suffix and its type are disputed: -C- stem (NWG 434f.) or -i- stem
542 Appendix: Supplemental information
1. mel (n, -a-) ‘time, season’ = ON mál ‘time; meal’, OE mæl ‘moment; meal’, OHG māl ‘point
in time; meal’ < Gmc. *mēl(l)a- < IE *meh1-tló-/-dhlo-; cf. Gk. m trā ‘areal measure’, métron
‘measure, goal, length, meter’ < *mh1-tro- (Kroonen 2017: 107)
2. mel (n -a-, pl tant) ‘writings’ (Jn 5:47), ‘Scripture(s)’ (Mk 12:24, Lk 4:21) = ON mál ‘orna-
ment (on a sword)’, OS (hobid)mal /hō idmāl/ ‘(head)portrait’, OHG māl ‘spot, point’, OE
mæl ‘mark, sign’ < Gmc. *mēlan [?*(s)meh1- ‘smear’] probably related to Lat. macula ‘spot,
blemish’ but the details and etymology are disputed (AHDR 80, HGE 269f.). The root
*smeh1- may be restricted to Greek (LIV 568), *smh1-tleh2- should have given Lat. *mācula,
and three different roots (not covering all these examples) have been reconstructed (EDPG
362). Since Lat. macula points to *mh1-tleh2-, a semantic change of ‘measure’ > ‘mark’ > ‘spot’
enables relating 2.mel to 1.mel (Kroonen 2017: 107)
meljan (wk 1) ‘write’ = LON mæla / mála ‘paint, portray’, OS mālōn* ‘mark, paint’ (only PPP
gimalod ‘multicolored’), OHG mālōn, mālēn ‘id.’, OE (ge-)mælan ‘to spot, blemish’ (denom
to mel ‘writings, scriptures’)
mes* ‘platter’ (Mk 6:25, 28), ‘table’ (Mk 12:1) [see dals* above], pl mesa ‘tables’ (of the
moneychangers)’ (Mk 11:15) (§1.6). The source is VL *mēsa (Lat. mēnsa ‘table’) (Francovich
Onesti 2011: 200)
midjis* (adj -ja-) ‘middle’ = ON miðr, OS middi, OHG mitti, OE midde, all ‘innermost, middle’
< Gmc. *midja- (LHE2 122, 143, 152), earlier *medja- (HGE 264, EDPG 360) < PIE *médhyo-
‘middle’ (§8.19); cf. Ved. mádhya- ‘id.’, etc. (EWAia 2.572, GED 253, EWDS 563)
*midus (m -u-) ‘mead’ = ON mjoðr, MLG mede, OHG metu, OE medo, me(o)du mead < Gmc.
*meduz [*médhu- ‘honey; mead’]; cf. Ved. mádhu- ‘sweet; honey, mead’, Gk. méthu ‘wine’,
etc. (AHDR 52; HGE 265, LHE 272)
mikils (adj -a-) ‘great, large, many’ = ON mikill ‘large, big’, OS mikil ‘great, big; many, much;
plentiful’, OHG mi(h)hil ‘great, large’, OE micel ‘great, much, many’ < *mikilaz < *mekilaz
< Pre-Gmc. *megalaz < dial. IE *meg-h2-lo- [*meg-h2 ‘great’]; cf. Gk. megálōs ‘greatly’
(GED 254, AHDR 52, HGE 265); alternatively Germanic added a suffix *-ila- (or *-eli-?) to
the root *meg- , like *līt-ila- ‘little’ (EDPG 361); more likely, this suffix is dialectal IE, and
‘little’ contains a diminutive (§8.43)
nahts (f -C-) ‘night’ (Goth. sg nom/gen nahts, dat/acc naht, pl only dat nahtam): mixed
stems elsewhere: ON nátt / nótt, OS, OHG naht, OE neaht / niht (details in Kahle 1887:
32–7) < Gmc. *naht-s < PIE *nókw-t- / *nékw-t- (§8.2; EDPG 381, LIPP 2.574ff., LHE2 113, 117);
a primary -t- stem to *nekw- or more likely *negw- ‘get dark’, as in Hitt. neku(z)zi ‘becomes
evening’ (Schindler 1967: 294, LIV 449, NWG 433, Vijūnas 2009: 38–42; root *negwh-
in EDHIL 602, EDL 416, EDG 1027); cf. Lat. nox/noct- ‘night’, Lith. naktìs ‘id.’ (-i- stems)
namo (n -n- irreg; pl namna) ‘name’ (§3.3) = ON nafn (< *namn- Ralph 2002: 716; Johnsen
2005: 254f.); cf. masc OS, OHG namo, OE nama < Gmc. *namōn / *nam(n)an, a variant of the
IE word for ‘name’ (cf. Gk. ónoma, Lat. nōmen, etc.): *h3néh3-mō / *h3neh3-mn / *h3nh3-m(e)n-
(§8.17; EDL 412, EDPG 382f.). Neri (2005) argues for *h1néh3-mon- / *h1nh3-mn-´ (etc.)
(cf. LHE2 92, 94, 189f.). Also proposed is a contrast between *h1néh3-mn ‘name’ and collective
*h1néh3-mō(n) ‘pair of names; full name’ with -ō(n) from *-on-h2 (Nussbaum 2014: 296f.).
As to the initial laryngeal, the initial e- in some languages has several different origins
(EDG 1084f.), and Anatolian points to *h3 (EDHIL 517ff.); the short a in namo etc. is due to
generalization of the Osthoff ’s Law (VCC > V̆ CC) alternant: PGmc *n mō / *nŏmn-´ > *namo
/ namn- (LHE2 94f.)
544 Appendix: Supplemental information
naqaþs (adj -a- 8x, 2 dupl) ‘naked’ = ON nøkkviðr, OE nacod (> naked) < Gmc. *nakwa/eda-,
the source of which is variously reconstructed *nogw-o/e-dho-, *nogw-o/e-tó-, and various other
things (EDPG 382); Lat. nūdus ‘nude’ has been compared but there is no agreement on the
reconstruction of that either (LSDE 191, EDL 417f.). The only agreement is that PIE had a
root adj *nógw-s / *negw- that was variously extended in different IE languages (Beekes 1994)
nasjan, ga-nasjan (wk 1) ‘save, heal’ = OS nerian ‘rescue, redeem, save, nourish’, OHG ner(r)en
‘heal, nourish’, OE nerian ‘save, rescue’ < Gmc. *nazjan- < IE *nos-éye- (caus to ga-nisan, q.v.)
nati (acc) ‘net’ = ON net ‘net, fishnet’, OS netti (acc sg & pl) ‘(fish)net’, OHG nezzi ‘net’,
OE nett ‘net; network, web’ < Gmc. *nat-ja- (no Germanic base word) perhaps from dial.
IE *nHd-yo-m [*Hnedh- ‘bind, tie’ LIV 227] (AHDR 57, HGE 281f.), but Lat. nōdus ‘knot’
and Gmc. *natja- point rather to a root *nohxd- / *neh3d- (NWG 135, EDL 412, EDPG 384)
or a vrddhi derivative to *nod- (LHE2 91)
nauþs ‘force, compulsion’ = ON nauðr ‘necessity, need’, nauð ‘need, distress; bondage’, OS nōd
‘need, hardship, distress’, OHG nōt, OBav noth (m/f) ‘id.’, OF nēd ‘id.’, OE nīed, nyd (f/n),
Angl. nēd need (WS nēad without umlaut is segmented off compounds: VG 477) < Gmc.
*nauþi- ‘compulsion, distress’ < IE *neh2u-ti- (EDPG 385; cf. VG 476ff.; a different recon-
struction in NWG 511)
ni (neg) ‘not’ (emphatic nei ‘not at all’ < *né ih1 ‘not at all’ LIPP 2.537; ne (9x, 4 dupl) ‘no’ < *ne
eh1 ‘not at all’ LIPP 2.536) = ON né, OS, OHG ni, ne, OE ne < Gmc. *ne unstressed ni [1.*né
‘not’ LIPP 2.530, 534]; cf. Skt. ná ‘not’, Lat. nē, ne- ‘not’ (GED 265, AHDR 57, HGE 283, LHE
117); the clause-initial position of *ne is an isogloss shared with Celtic and Old Lithuanian
but possible in Vedic and Mycenaean Greek (Ivanov 1999)
1. nibai (Q adv): see iba(i).
2. nibai / niba ‘if not, unless’ (§§9.49ff.; neg of jabai, q.v.); ‘except’ (§§3.27, 4.26)
ni-h ‘and not, nor, not even’. There is variation in what ni and nih translate from Greek (Schaaffs
1904: 39–44), but several important functions are typically singled out (Streitberg 1981: 61;
Feuillet 2014: 39f.; Rousseau 2016: 482, 510f.):
(i) ni . . . nih ‘not . . . and not’, nih . . . nih ‘neither . . . nor’ (Moerkerken 1888: 13)
(iia) ‘not even’, e.g. nih Saulaumon (Mt 6:29) ‘not even Solomon’ (§9.8)
(iib) ‘not . . . even’:
ni wilda nih augona seina ushafjan (Lk 18:13)
‘he was not willing even to raise his eyes’ (§11.15)
(iii) (emphatic?) ni, e.g.
akei nih skama mik (2Tim 1:12A/B)
‘yet I am not ashamed’
nis sijai (Lk 20:16; Rom 7:7, 13, 9:14, 11:1, 11A; Gal 2:17A)
‘let it not be’ (Gk. m génoito ‘id.’), i.e. ‘absolutely not’
(iv) counterfactual conditional (possibly a different ni-h, parallel to ni-ba §9.50)
nih wesi sa fram guda (Jn 9:33)
‘were he not from God’
As to etymology, the composition on most accounts is ni ‘not’ + -h < *-hw(e) [*kwe ‘and’];
cf. Lat. ne-que ‘and not; nor’ (Cubbin 1977; Klein & Condon 1993: 47–50; AHDR 44; HGE
Appendix: Supplemental information 545
434; Ivanov 1999); Dunkel posits two sources: *né 1.kwe ‘and not’ (LIPP 2.538) and 1.*né kwe
‘if not’ (LIPP 2.704)
niman (str 4) ‘take, catch, accept, get’ = ON nema ‘take’, OS niman ‘id.’, OHG neman ‘id.’,
OE niman ‘take, seize’ < Gmc. *nem-an- [*nem- ‘allot, distribute, take’]; cf. Gk. némein ‘allot’
(AHDR 58, LIV 453)
ga-nisan (str 5) ‘be saved, healed’ = OS gi-nesan ‘be saved’, OHG gi-nesan ‘heal, recuperate’,
OE (ga)nesan ‘be saved; survive’ < Gmc. *nesan- < IE *nes-e- [*nes- ‘return (home) safe’ LIV
454f.] (GED 146, 263, EWDS 581, HGE 281, 284, EDPG 385, 387)
ni-u (clause-initial neg Q) ‘do not . . . ?, did not . . . ?, is it not the case that . . . ?’ (see ni ‘not’ and
-u ‘Q’; cf. ja-u) in rhetorical yes/no- questions, not wh- questions, or with interrogative pro-
nouns or adverbs (GrGS 210; Schulze 1907a: 563; GE 219; Masuda 1978: 10; Ivanov 1999;
Pagliarulo 2016: 114), e.g. niu gamaindūþs bloþis fraujins ist . . . niu gamaindūþs leikis fraujins
ist (1Cor 10:16A) ‘is this not the communion of the Lord’s blood . . . is this not the communion
of the Lord’s body?’ The expected answer is usually affirmative. For a negative reply, cf.
niu jah þu þize siponje þis is? . . . Ne, ni im (Jn 18:25) ‘are you not also one of this man’s
disciples? . . . No, I’m not.’
niujis (adj -ja-) ‘new’ = ON nýr, Far. nýggjur, Elfd. ny(r), OS, OHG niuwi, Du. nieuw, OE nīwe,
nēowe < Gmc. *neuja- < dial. IE *néwio- (Rigvedic trisyllabic návyas /návi(y)as/ ‘new, fresh,
young’, Welsh newydd ‘new’, etc. LHE2 11, 146, w. lit; cf. §8.19) beside *néw-o-: Hitt. nēwa-
‘new, fresh’, Gk. néos ‘new, young, youthful, unusual’, Lat. novus ‘new’, etc., all derivatives
from 1.*nú ‘now’ (EDHIL 605, EDL 416, EDG 1009, EDPG 389, LIPP 2.581)
nu ‘now’ (252x), a temporal adverb (1.nu in Snædal) referring to the utterance time or an inter-
val that includes it, or to the past time. Unless focused in the left periphery, it normally pre-
cedes the finite verb (except in the Epistles) but follows an imperative (Ferraresi 2018). Apart
from that, it occurs in any position, e.g. in þaimei nu bauam (Bl 1r.2) ‘in which we now dwell’,
þo nu ald (2Tim 4:10A/B) ‘this present world’, usually translating Gk. nũn, nuní, árti ‘now’
(Marold 1881b: 2). It is also an unstressed (Hopper 1969: 42, w. lit) constituent-splitting 2nd
position (3rd after iþ saei, ni V, or V-u) inferential particle (2.nu in Snædal) ‘then, thus, there-
fore’, e.g. us-nu-gibiþ (Lk 20:25) ‘then/therefore pay out’ (Rousseau 2012: 266). It occurs only
in speech, never in narrative (Klein 2018a). It most frequently translates Gk. oũn ‘now, then’
and signals a return to the central topic, the conclusion to an argument (Ferraresi 2018; A nu
B = A implies B: Rousseau 2012: 218), or an impatient, doubtful question (Marold 1881b: 3ff.;
Moerkerken 1888: 18–22; Friedrichsen 1961a: 105; Fuß 2003: 203ff.; Ferraresi 2005: 167ff.)
Of the 18 correspondents of Gk. dé, nu is number 16 (Rousseau 2012: 217). In the follow-
ing example, signaled by Marold (1881b: 5), nu does double duty: aiwa nu sai iþ (Jn 9:19)
‘how then does he see now?’ (after having been blind) for Gk. põs oũn árti blépei? (classified
in Snædal as 1.nu)
Nu is cognate with ON nú (long vowel forms from *nu-h1), OS, OHG nū/nu, OE nū now
[1.*nú ‘now’]; cf. Hitt., Gk., etc. nu ‘now’ (GED 269, AHDR 58f., HGE 289, EDPG 392,
LIPP 2.577)
nunu (reduplicated nu) ‘therefore, so’ (5x, 3 dupl) is used in prohibitive sentences except at
Phil 4:4A/B with an affirmative command. While nu occurs after an imperative or optative,
nunu always precedes, e.g. ni nunu ogeiþ (Mt 10:31) ‘so don’t be afraid’ (GrGS 262)
paida (acc) (f -ō-) ‘tunic, vest, shirt’ = OHG pfeit ‘coat’, OS pēda ‘garment’, OE pād ‘coat, cloak’
< PGmc. *paidō- ‘coat, shirt’, a borrowing before GL perhaps via Thracian from Eastern
Greek baítē ‘shepherd’s or peasant’s coat; tent of skins’ (EDG 193; EDPG 395; Seebold 2015:
7f.; Neri 2016: 13)
546 Appendix: Supplemental information
praufetes (and -u- stem praufetus) ‘prophet’ is from Gk. proph tēs [fore-teller] ‘prophet’ and has
the Greek ending 3x (Mk 6:15, Jn 7:40, 11:32) beside the -u- stem nom sg praufetus (12x + Bl
1r.7, 2v.10, 2r.13f.); the remainder of the singular, and the acc and dat pl are -u- stem; nom
pl praufeteis (6x + Bl 1r.16) and gen pl praufete (7x) are -i- stem formations; cf. aggilus ‘angel’
(-u- stem) beside -i- stem pl nom aggileis, gen aggi/ele (Streitberg 1924: 445) (see also the
compounds of praufetus in §7.5)
praufeti* (n -ja-?) / praufetja (m -jan-?) ‘prophecy’ appears irregular: nom pl n praufetja (1Cor
13:8, 14:22B), acc pl m praufetjans (1Cor 13:2A, 1Tim 4:14B), dat pl praufetjam (1Thess
5:20B, 1Tim 1:18A/B). For praufetja as nt pl, cf. praufetja gatairanda (1Cor 13:8B) ‘prophecies
(Gk. pl prophēteĩai) will be destroyed’. Laird (1940: 141) takes praufetja as nom sg m and
gatairanda as a weak PrP, but (i) that is not motivated syntactically, (ii) gatairanda is
unattested as a participle, and (iii) gatairands is otherwise transitive ‘destroying’. Praufetja
also translates Gk. sg prophēteíā: iþ praufetja ni þaim ungalaubjandam (1Cor 14:22A) ‘but
prophecy [is] not for the unbelieving’. The absence of a verb with subject agreement does
not preclude praufetja being plural, but the paradigms would be more regular if there are
two lexemes: borrowed praufetja (nom sg m) and innovated Goth. praufeti* (nom pl praufetja
1Cor 13:8B) (cf. Skeat 1868: 185; NWG 145). Because of the j (§2.13), praufetja may be an early
Christian borrowing from Lat. prophētīa, as indicated also by the derived verb praufetjan* ‘to
prophesy’ [see next] (Corraza 1969: 92f.; GED 273; Francovich Onesti 2011: 203)6
praufetjan* (wk 1 §5.15) ‘prophesy’, denom to praufetja ‘prophecy’; cf. ME prophecien (> proph-
esy) denom to prophecie prophecy, MHG prophētien to prophētie, etc. (Laird 1940: 140f.;
GED 273)
qiman (str 4) ‘come’ = ON koma, OS cuman, kuman, OHG queman, coman, OE cuman ‘id.’
< PGmc. *kwem-an- based on an old aor sbj *gwém-e/o- (Hoffmann 1955b: 91; LIV 209f.,
LHE2 186 [*gwem- ‘go, come’] (see also GED 276, AHDR 33, HGE 227f., EDPG 316, LHE2 181)
qino (f -n-) ‘woman, wife’ = ON kona ‘id.’ (stem unclear), OS quena ‘woman, wife, consort’,
OHG quena ‘woman, wife’, OE cwene ‘woman, wife, prostitute’ < Gmc. *kwen-ō-n-, an -n-
expansion of the IE laryngeal stem [*gwen-h2- ‘woman’] (Saussure apud Rousseau 2009: 495;
GED 277, KM 91, AHDR 34, MUN 177, HGE 228, EDGP 317, Thöny 2013: 100, Pronk 2015)
qiþan (str 5) ‘speak, say, tell’ = ON kveða ‘say, recite’, OS quethan ‘speak, say’, OHG quedan
‘id.’, OE cweðan ‘say, speak’ < Gmc. *kweþ-an-, for which *gwet-2 ‘say, speak’ (AHDR 34,
HGE 229, LIV 212) is but one possibility (EDPG 319)
raihts* ‘straight, right’ = ON réttr ‘upright, straight, correct’, OS reht ‘right, just; legal; true’,
OHG reht ‘straight, good, right’, OE riht ‘straight, direct; right, proper, fitting; just, equitable,
lawful; correct, true’ < PGmc. *rehtaz ‘straight, right’ < post-PIE *h3reg/k-tó-s ‘straightened’,
rebuilt from PIE *h3rg-tó-s [*h3reg- ‘straighten, direct, stretch out’ LIV 304f.]; cf. Gk. orektós
‘stretched out’, Lat. rēctus ‘straight, upright, right’ (GPA 441, HGE 300f., LSDE 307, EDL
517f., EDPG 408, LHE2 134)
6 Streitberg (1919: 105f.) assumes that praufetja is nom pl n, but also allows for it to be a sg -n- stem,
with acc pl m praufetjans. Snædal (2013a: ii. 396) lists praufetja as exclusively neuter plural of praufeti* but
seems also to assume a masc paradigm praufetja* (like drakma* ‘drachma’) underlying praufetjans.
A simpler scenario is that praufetja was borrowed as a singular -jan- stem which, because of its unusual
form, was reanalyzed as the frequent neuter -ja- stem plural type, thereby generating a backformed noun
praufeti*. The absence of acc pl *praufetja, if not an accidental gap, also suggests that the word was originally
masc and that the neuter gender is neologistic.
Appendix: Supplemental information 547
razn (n -a-) ‘house’ = ON rann ‘large house’, OE ærn, ræn ‘place, habitation, house, dwelling’
< Gmc. *razna- (etym. unclear; many attempts in GED 283, VG 246–9, HGE 300, NWG
316f.; ignored in EDPG)
reiki* ‘rulership, sovereignty, (ruling) power’ = ON ríki ‘power, might; wealth; rule; kingdom’,
OS rīki ‘rule, reign; power; realm, kingdom; nation, land’, OHG rīhhi ‘id.’ (Germ. Reich), OE
rīce ‘power, rule; reign; kingdom, realm, diocese; people, nation’ < Gmc. *rīk-ja- derived
from *rīk-s ‘ruler, king’ (Goth. reiks [m -C-] ‘ruler’) borrowed from Celtic; cf. OIr. rí ‘king’.
Though probably a Germanic derivative, *rīkja- is comparable to MIr. ríge ‘kingdom’
< *rēg(i)yom [*h3reg- ‘straighten, stretch, rule’] (Ross & Thomson 1976; AHDR 70, LIV 304f.,
HGE 305, NWG 46, 130, EDPG 412f.)
rign (n -a-) ‘rain’ = ON regn ‘id.’ < Gmc. *regna-n; cf. OS regan, regin (m -a-), OHG regan, OE
regn ‘rain’ < Gmc. *regna-z < dial. IE ?*Hrégh-no- [?*Hregh-]; cf. Lat. ir-rigāre ‘irrigate’
(not connected in EDL 523; insecure EDPG 408; other guesses in GED 284, HGE 300, and
NWG 323f.)
rodjan, rodida, rodidedum (1x), rodiþs* (wk 1) ‘speak, say, tell’ = ON rœða ‘speak’ < Gmc. *rōdjan-
[*reh1dh- ‘pursue assiduously’] (HGE 306, LIV 499f.)
rūms (adj -a-) ‘spacious’ = ON rúmr ‘roomy, spacious, ample’, MDu ruum ‘wide, broad’, OHG
rūmi ‘id.’, OE rūm ‘spacious, ample’ (and rūmig roomy) < Gmc. *rūmaz < IE *ruh1-mo-
[*reuh1- ‘open’] (AHDR 71, HGE 309, LIV 510)
rūna (f -ō-) (18x, 4 dupl) ‘mystery, secret’ (15x), ‘counsel’ (Mt 27:1), ‘motive, purpose’ (1Cor
4:5A), (God’s) ‘plan’ (Lk 7:30); “never used of writing, a written character or a magic for-
mula” (Laird 1940: 128–32; cf. Barasch 1973: 141f.); cf. ga-rūni (§8.18)
Relatives include OS rūna* (dat sg runu etc.) ‘(confidential) meeting, (secret) council,
advice’, OHG rūna ‘id.’, OE rūn ‘mystery; advice; discussion; word’, prob not the same word
as NWGmc. rūn- ‘rune’, from a root meaning ‘dig, cut’ (Morris 1985; Pierce 2003b; Wolfe
2018b assumes the relationship). Goth. rūna goes back to PGmc. *rūnō-, phps cognate with
OIr. rún ‘mystery secret’ < PCelt. *rūnā, if the Germanic word was not borrowed from Celtic,
or both sets of words from a non-IE source (EDPC 316f.; see also Lühr 2000a: 216; GED
287f., HGE 310; NWG 318; ignored in EDPG)
sai ‘lo, behold’ is historically the imperative of sai an ‘see’ (Grimm 1851: 246f.; Mossé 1956: 310;
W. Krause 1968: 86; Derolez & Simon-Vandenbergen 1988),7 but synchronically an interjec-
tion divorced from restored sai (7x, 1 dupl) ‘see!’ For the restoration of in sai see nih
and Cubbin (1977, w. lit). Rarely, as a reflex of its history as an imperative, it has an accusa-
tive feature, e.g. sai nu selein jah assein gudis (Rom 11:22A) ‘behold then the goodness and
severity of God’. Sai generally translates Gk. idoú, íde ‘see, behold’ (cf. ecce ‘id.’ in the Latin
versions) but needs no translation prompt. Although a plurality of functions have been listed
(e.g. Douse 1886: 264f.), the main function is as an event focus particle with no case feature;
cf. rabbei, sai, smakkabagms þanei fraqast gaþaursnoda (Mk 11:21) ‘rabbi, look, the fig tree
that you cursed has withered!’, with sai rendering Gk. íde and/or pre-Vulg. ecce (VL 1970:
105), sai magaþs in kilþein ganimiþ (Bl 2v.7) ‘behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb’
(= Mt 1:23 with Gk. idoú, Lat. ecce). It can also serve as a focus particle for individual words,
e.g. sai, manna afetja jah weindrugkja (Lk 7:34) ‘behold, a glutton and vinobibe!’.
7 Other hypotheses include locative *so-i and a derivative *so-íh1 (LIPP 2.381, 735, w. lit). Because of its
different functions, convergence of two etyma have been suggested. See Porterfield (1934: 212f., w. lit).
548 Appendix: Supplemental information
An example with no Greek or Latin prompt in any extant text (cf. VL 1970: 3) is jah suns
sai, ahma ina ustauh in auþida (Mk 1:12) ‘and immediately, behold, the spirit led him out
into the desert’. Another example occurs in the matching lines at Jn 7:48 and Sk 8.3.1
(Falluomini 2016a: 284f.). Because of the ambiguity of Gk. as nunì dè ‘but now’ or
nũn íde ‘see now’, occasionally, the two are combined in Goth. iþ nu sai ‘but see now’ for
nũn íde ‘but now’, e.g. Rom 7:6A, 2Cor 8:11A/B, Eph 2:13A/B (Maßmann 1857: lxxxvii).
saian (str 7) ‘sow’ = ON sá, OE sāwan ‘sow’ < Gmc. *sēan- < IE *seh1-e- (EDPG 428) or innova-
tive present *seh1-ye/o- (LHE2 159f., w. lit) [*seh1- ‘sow’ LIV 517]
sai an (str 5) ‘see’ = ON sjá, OS, OHG sehan, OE sēon ‘see’ < Gmc. *sehwan- [*sekw- ‘follow’ >
‘see’] (AHDR 74, HGE 323, LIV 525f., LHE 107, EDPG 431f.)
saiws* (m, -i- based on Gmc. cognates: Sturtevant 1945a: 3; Braune & Ebbinghaus 1961: 67;
Meid 1982: 91; GG 98; Thöny 2013: 121f.) ‘lake, marshland’, later ‘(drained) swampland’
(Scardigli 1973: 285) = ON sær / sjár / sjór ‘sea, lake’, OS sēo, OHG sē(o) ‘id.’, OE sæ sea
(m/f) < Gmc. *saiwi-, with many fanciful etymologies (GED 292, HGE 314), the most likely
possibility being *soikw-í- [*seikw- ‘sprinkle, pour’ LIV 523] (VEW 389f., Meid 1982, NWG
181, EDPG 423)
salbon (1x), salboda (1x) / ga-salboda (4x), ga-salbodedun (1x), — (wk 2) ‘anoint’ = OS sal ōn
‘id.’, OHG salbōn ‘id.’, OE sealfian ‘id.’ (salve) < Gmc. *salbōjan- < IE *solpā-yé/ó- ‘anoint’,
denom to *solpéh2 ‘ointment’ [*selp- ‘fat; anoint’] (AHDR 74, HGE 315, LHE 102, 164)
1. saljan (6x) ‘make an offering, offer (service), sacrifice’ (Laird 1940: 116–19) = ON selja ‘hand
over, sell’, OS gi-sellian ‘id.’, OHG sellen ‘id.’, OE sellan / syllan ‘give; furnish; yield; deliver;
sell’ < Gmc. *saljan- ‘offer, sell’ < IE caus *solh1-éye- ‘let take’, hence ‘hand over’ [*selh1-
‘take’]; cf. Gk. hel-eĩn ‘to take’ (AHDR 75, HGE 316, LIV 529, LHE 222, EDPG 424f.)
2. saljan (10x, 3dupl) ‘stay, remain, reside, take lodging, spend time’, denom to *saliz- ‘hall, house’,
e.g. ON salr ‘room, hall’ (EDPG 424)
sama (pronominal wk adj 46x [incl 3 in the Bologna fragment], 12 dupl) mostly an adnominal
modifier (with D) ‘the same’ (= old information), (without D) ‘one, of one kind; the one’
(§3.8). The core uses follow.
qaþ unfroþs in hairtin seinamma · | nist g(u)þ · sa sama ist jah unsibjis (Bl 2r.18f.)
‘the foolish man said in his heart: There is no god. The same man is also an outlaw’
in þamma samin landa (Lk 2:8) ‘in that same country’
ain auk ist jah þata samo (1Cor 11:5A) ‘for that is one and the same (thing)’
saei gatawida þo ba du samin (Eph 2:14A/B)
‘who has made us both into one’ (Gk. hén ‘one’)
twai wairþand ana ligra samin (Lk 17:34)
‘two will be on (the) one bed’ (Gk. epì kli nēs miãs ‘on one bed’)
witandans þatei im jah izwis sama frauja ist in himinam (Eph 6:9A/B)
‘knowing that for them and for you one (and the same) master is in the heavens’
[(non-Byz.) Gk. eidótes hóti kaì autõn kaì hūmõn ho kūriós estin en ouranoĩs
‘knowing that of both them and you the master is in the heavens’]
For the last example, no extant Greek or Latin version has ‘same’ (details in Ratkus 2018c)
Appendix: Supplemental information 549
Cognates include ON samr ‘the same’, OHG samo ‘id.’ < PGmc. *sama(n)- ‘same’; cf. Gk.
homós ‘common, same’ < IE *somhx-o- (Darms 1978: 481 ftn. 65; EDPG 425) or more simply
*som-ó- (LIPP 2.723ff., with discussion)
satjan* (ga-satjan etc.) wk 1) ‘set, put, establish, plant’ = ON setja ‘seat, set, place, put; make,
establish; appoint’, OS settian ‘put, set, place; sit down; compose’, OHG sezzen ‘set, put’, OE
settan ‘set (down), place, put; appoint; establish; build; compose’ < Gmc. *satjan- ‘set’ < *sod-
éye- (caus to sitan, q.v.)
sauil (n -a-) ‘sun’ = ON sól, OE sōl; cf. runic sōlu ‘by the sun’ (Kr 101: Eggja stone) < Gmc. *sō(w)el;
Germanic also has an -n- stem Goth. sunno (q.v.), reflecting heteroclitic ?*séh2wl (cf. Lat.
sōl ‘sun’ < ?*sh2w l with generalized radical zero grade) beside ?*sh2uén-, but there is little
agreement on the reconstructions or historical developments (see Schindler 1975: 10, EDL
570, NIL 606–11, Neri 2009: 8, Nikolaev 2010: ch. 3, EDPG 463f., Melchert et al. 2014: 263,
LHE2 61f., 162, 309f.)
seins* (poss refl adj -a-) ‘one’s own’ (oblique cases only) = ON sinn, OS, OHG, OE sīn ‘id.’
< Gmc. *sīna- < *sei-no-, which is only Germanic and probably parallel to meins (*swei-no-
is more frequent; cf. Messapic acc sg veinan ‘one’s own’ LIPP 2.758). It is sometimes stated
that *se- is the 3rd person prn and *swe- the refl anaphor, but PIE likely had no reflexive
pronoun, *swe- was an adj ‘own’, and *se- was demonstrative (Kiparsky 2011; MPIE 2.2.5).
Dunkel combines the root forms as 1.swe-, 2.*se-, 2.*su- ‘(one)self ’, pronoun stem, reflexive
(LIPP 2.751–68), but the reflexive use was doubtless later (for the more conventional view
see AHDR 87f., GED 299, HGE 330, EDGP 436)
-seþs (f -i-) ‘seed’ (e.g. Goth. manaseþs ‘mankind; crowd’ §§7.11, 8.9) = ON sáð ‘the chaff ’, OHG
sāt ‘seed, field’ < Gmc. *sēdiz < IE *seh1-tí-s [*seh1- ‘sow’ LIV 517] (NWG 506); cf. PGmc.*sēda-
(n -a-) ‘seed’ > ON sáð ‘seed, crop’, OS sād ‘id.’, OF sēd ‘id.’, OE sæd ‘seed, fruit, growth, sow-
ing’ < IE *seh1-tó-m (EDPG 429f.)
sibja (f -jo-) (Gal 4:5A acc) ‘adoption’, literally ‘extended family’; cf. OHG sippa ‘clan’, all from
the PIE root *sebh- ‘one’s own’ (Kind 1901: 25f.; NWG 155; LIPP 2.760)
Unsibjis (adj -ja-) ‘ungodly, iniquitous; outlaw’, possibly orig ‘one expelled from the tribe
because of lawlessness or impiety’ (Laird 1940: 20). Despite unsibjona misspelled <unsib-
jana> (Mt 7:23), these formations are native Gothic (Kind 1901: 25). Unsibjaim, the margin
gloss of afgudaim (§7.12), is closer to the Greek (Marold 1881a: 144) and signals a state more
withdrawn from God (Groeper 1915: 62). Nom unsibjis (Bl 2r.19, 20) ‘outlaw’ = Gk. paráno-
mos ‘id.’; cf. unsib|[jaim] (1r.3f.), un[sib]ja[i] (1r.5) ‘ungodly (ones)’.
siggwan (str 3) ‘chant, read’ = ON syngva ‘sing’, OS, OHG singan, OE singan sing < PGmc.
*singwan- < *sengwan- < IE *sengwh-on-o- [*sengwh- ‘sing, announce’ LIV 532] (Ganina 2001:
147f.; AHDR 75, HGE 324, 149, EDPG 437, LHE2 112, 128, 174)
silba (wk -a/n-) ‘self ’ = ON sjálfr, OS self, OHG selb, OE seolf (> self) < Gmc. *selba(n)- ‘self ’
(EDPG 441) < dial. IE *selbho- [1.*swe-, 2.*se-, 2.*su- ‘self ’ prn and refl anaphor LIPP 2.751
but see seins*]; cf. Venetic sselboisselboi ‘for himself ’ (Lejeune 1974: 294 #236), the only non-
Germanic language with *se-lbho-, usually reconstructed *sel-bho- (Lejeune 1974: 170, AHDR
87f., HGE 323), but the -l- may come from a root like *labh- ‘take hold of ’ (LIPP 2.759).
Given formations like *s(w)e-bho- or *s(w)e-bhw(H)-o- (LIPP 2.760), a string *se-l(o)-bh(w)-o-
seems possible.
silubr (acc) (n -a-) ‘silver’ = ON silfr, OS silu ar (acc), OHG sil(a)bar, OF sel(o)ver, silver,
sulver, OE seolfor / siolfor, LWS sylfor (Hogg 1992: 155, 191, 215; EIE 107) < Gmc. *silubra-
(n) ‘silver’ (NWG 421), a European word; cf. Celtib. silabur ‘id.’ (EDPG 436), of obscure
550 Appendix: Supplemental information
origin, e.g. Kartvelian (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984: 713), Vasconic (Vennemann 2003: ch. 7),
other suggested sources (HGE 328f.)
sitan (str 5) ‘sit’; cf. ON sitja ‘sit, be seated; stay, tarry’, OS sittian ‘sit (down), be situated; live,
dwell, inhabit’, OHG sizzen ‘id.’, OE sittan ‘id.’ < Gmc. *set(j)an- < IE *sed-(y)e- [*sed- ‘sit’]
(GED 296, EWDS 760, LIV 513, HGE 319, EDPG 427, 434)
skaidan, 3sg -skaiskaid (1x) -skaiskaidun (1x), *skaidans (str 7) ‘divide; separate; divorce’
< Gmc. *skaiþ- (VEW 402ff.), the only verb in Gothic to generalize the voiced VL alternant,
but not a real exception to the generalization that Gothic eliminated VL in the strong verb
because OE scādan did the same (Suzuki 2018)
skal (prt prs) ‘owe; be indebted; be obliged, have to, should’ = ON skal ‘must, am/is obliged’,
OS, OHG scal ‘shall, must, can, ought to, be obliged, destined to’, OE sceal ‘must, ought, is
to’; past ‘had to, was to, should’ (> shall) < PGmc. *skal < earlier *skal-a/e ‘I owe / s/he owes’
(etc.) phps < IE stative *skol-é / *skl- [*skel-2 ‘owe, be obligated’ LIV 552] (Randall & Jones
2015: 167f.; other hypotheses in GED 313, AHDR 77, HGE 332, EDPG 450, LHE2 179)
-skap(j)an: ga-skapjan* (str 6) ‘create, make’ = ON skapa ‘shape, form, make, create’, skepja
‘id.’, OS gi-skeppian* (3sg pret giscop etc.) ‘create, ordain’, OHG scepfen ‘form, make’, OE
sc(i)eppan ‘form, create’ (HGE 331, 334, LHE 114); etym. uncertain (EDPG 440)
(us)skarjan* (wk 1) ‘tear out, extricate’ or ‘sober up’? (2x): 2pl usskarjiþ izwis garaihtaba (1Cor
15:34A) ‘extricate yourselves (from wrongdoing and live) righteously’ for Gk. ekn psate
‘sober yourselves up’; 3pl opt pass usskarjaindau us unhulþins wruggon (2Tim 2:26A/B)
‘they will be extricated from the devil’s snare’ for Gk. anan psōsin ‘they may sober up’ (LHE2
194). This verb has often been amended and in this form is usually related to Gmc. *skeran-
[*sker(H)- ‘cut’] (GED 383; ignored in EDPG 443f.). The most extensive discussion is by
Regan (1972: 124–36, 252), who argues that the correct form should be us-skaþjan* ‘escape
from doing harm, stop wrong-doing’ (see skaþjan*)
(ga)skaþjan* (str 6) ‘(do) wrong, (do) harm, injure’ = ON skeðja ‘hurt, damage, scathe’, OE
sceþþan ‘id.’ < Gmc. *skaþjan-, from a European root *skeh1t(H)- (EDPG 441)
skeinan (str 1) ‘to shine’ (3x, 1 dupl) = ON skína ‘id.’, OS skīnan ‘shine, gleam, radiate, become
apparent’, OHG scīnan ‘id.’, OE scīnan ‘shine, be famous’ < Gmc. skīnan- ‘shine’, derived
from a nasal present [*skeh1- = *skeH- in LIV 546] (EDPG 445f.)
skeirs (nom sg f Sk 4.2.16) ‘clear, lucid’ (also gen sg n skeiris Sk 5.1.25) = ON skírr ‘clear, bright,
pure; cleansed’, OS skiri (acc sg n) ‘pure’, OHG skīri ‘pure, clear, brilliant’, OE scīr ‘bright,
clear, pure’ < *skīr-i/ja- (cf. HGE 341f.), perhaps rebuilt from *skīr-o- and related to Lat.
ob-scūrus ‘dark, gloomy’ < *skoh2-i-ro- (EDL 422; ignored in EDPG)
skip (n -a-) ‘ship’ = ON skip, OS skip, OHG skif / skef, OE scip, etc. < Gmc. *skip-an, of obscure
origin AHDR 79; proposals in HGE 340f.; perhaps an early borrowing from Lat. scyphus
‘drinking cup’ EDPG 446)
skuggwa* (m -n-), a hapax in sai am nu þairh skuggwan in frisahtai (1Cor 13:12A), for which
the usual gloss is ‘we see now through a mirror in darkness’, which is problematic because
the clearest relative is ON skuggi ‘shadow, shade’. The origin is obscure. Kroonen recon-
structs Gmc. *skuwwan- from PIE *skeu- ‘see’ (EDPG 452). Other conjectures can be found
in HGE 347, with a preference for a connection to Skt. skunati ‘covers’ [*skeuh2- ‘poke,
nudge’ LIV 561]. Following this same etymology, Regan (1972: 105–22) argues compellingly
that skuggwa* means ‘shadow, obscuration’, hence þairh skuggwan ‘enigmatically, darkly’,
and the Gothic line means ‘we see now dimly (through obfuscation) in(to) an image/reflec-
tion’. That is, “the image (fris-ahts) is a murky one” (Regan 1972: 120)
Appendix: Supplemental information 551
skula (m -n-) ‘owing (one), ower; debtor; obligated person; guilty person’ (§§8.21, 10.4) = OS
scolo ‘debtor, guilty (person)’, OHG scolo ‘id.’, OE gescola ‘fellow debtor’ < Gmc. *skul-an-
(see skal) (Velten 1930: 498; HGE 345, NWG 213)
slahan* (str 6) ‘strike, beat, hit, smite’ = ON slá ‘strike, smite, forge, slay, kill’, OS slahan ‘strike,
beat, slay; attack, massacre’, OHG slahan ‘id.’, OE slēan ‘strike; kill; coin money; strike a
deal; move; make a stroke’ < Gmc. *slahan- [*slak- ‘strike’, a Germanic-Celtic root] (GED
314, AHDR 79, HGE 348, LIV 564, EDPG 452)
slepan* (str 7) ‘sleep, be asleep’ (§§5.11, 2.4 ftn. 11) = OS slāpan, OHG slāfan, OE slæpan sleep
< Gmc. *slēpan- [*sleh1b- ‘sleep’] (AHDR 80, HGE 350, LIV 565); a Kluge’s Law account has
been proposed, which relates Gmc. *slēpan- to *slapp/bōn- ‘be slack’ < N European *slobh-
néh2- (EDPG 453)
sokjan (wk 1) ‘seek, search (for), query, question, ask’ (freq) = ON sœkja ‘seek, advance, catch’,
OS sōkian ‘seek, search for; ask for, demand; strive for; visit’, OHG suohhen ‘seek, request’,
OF sēka ‘seek; visit; charge, attack’, OE sēcan ‘try to find, look for; seek; visit’ < Gmc. *sōkjan-
‘seek, search’ < IE *séh2g-ye- [*seh2g- / *seh2g- ‘seek out, give a sign’]; cf. Lat. sāgīre ‘to per-
ceive’ (GED 318, AHDR 72, HGE 360, LIV 520, EDPG 464, LHE2 136, 144)
spill* (n -a-) ‘myth, tale’ = ON spjall ‘saying, tale, (magical) spell’, OS spel(l) ‘speech; speaking;
word; message’, OHG spel ‘speech, story, narrative’, OE spell ‘id.’ spell (cf. big-spell n -a-
‘parable’) < Gmc. *spella- ‘story, tale, legend’ < dial. IE *spel(hx)- o- [*(s)pelH- ‘say aloud;
recite’ LIV 576] (NWG 86, EDPG 466; cf. HGE 363). Another proposal relates it OIr. scél
‘story’ < *skw-etlo-, but the development of *skw- to *sp- is uncertain (Kroonen 2017: 105; not
related in EDPC 338f.)
stains (m -a-) ‘stone, rock’ = ON steinn ‘stone, boulder, rock; precious stone; stone building’, OS
stēn ‘stone, rock’, OHG stein ‘id.’, OE stān ‘id.’ < Gmc. *stai-na-z, e.g. runic stainaz (Kr 60,
ORI 18) < dial. IE *stoih2-no- [*steih2- ‘stiffen’]; cf. OCS stěna ‘wall’, (OSerb) ‘stone’ (EDPG
472; cf. NWG 317 *steih3-)
steigan (in us-steigan ‘ascend’), -staig, -stigun, *stigans (str 1) ‘climb’ = ON stíga ‘step (up)’, OS,
OHG stīgan ‘climb’, OE stīgan, stāg, stigon, stigen ‘ascend; go; rise; spring up’ < Gmc. *stīgan-
< PIE *steigh-e- [*steigh- ‘stride, step, rise’] (AHDR 85, HGE 378, LIV 593f.)
stigqan (1x), 3sg -stagq, -stug(g)qun, *stugqans (str 3) ‘clash, collide’ (§5.7) = ON stokkva ‘leap,
spring, jump, flee’, MLG stinken ‘smell, stink’, OHG stinkan ‘id.’, OE stincan ‘leap, spring;
smell, stink’ < Gmc. *stinkwan- < earlier *stenkw-an- [*stengw- ‘knock’] (HGE 375 ‘knock’
and ‘stink’ are two separate roots; LIV 596f. ‘stink’ is a further semantic development; cf.
EDPG 480f.; García García 2005: 85, w. lit, compares OE smiellan ‘strike’ > smell)
sums, sum / sumata, suma (prn, str -a-) ‘some, any’, of an existing individual or entity (on the
semantics, see Behaghel 1917, Bech 1952) = ON sumr, OS, OHG sum, OE sum some < Gmc.
*sumaz < IE *smm-o- [*sem- ‘unified, one’] (AHDR 75, HGE 385f., LIPP 2.674); cf. sumz-uþ-
þan [some-and-then] (1Cor 11:21A) ‘other’ (Ivanov 1999)
sunno (f/n -ōn-) ‘sun’: the gender is problematic. Acc sunno seina (Mt 5:45) ‘his sun’ must be
fem, but dat at urrinnandin sunnin (Mk 16:2) / at sunnin . . . urrinnandin (Mk 4:6) ‘at the
rising of the sun’ can be masc or nt. Most of the tradition has assumed the latter. Sturtevant
(1951: 52f.) argues for masculine. Cognates include ON sunna, OS sunno (m), sunna,
OHG sunna, OE sunne sun < Gmc. *sunnō(n), possibly from IE *sunwen-, remodeled from
*suwen- < *sh2wén- oblique stem of *sóh2wl [> Goth. sauil ‘sun’ q.v.] (AHDR 72, HGE 387,
LHE 277); also possible is that *sunn- has morphological gemination of *sun- after the
-n- stems (EDPG 464)
552 Appendix: Supplemental information
suns (adv) ‘at once, immediately’; cf. OE sōna ‘quickly’ (> soon), but the connection is unclear.
Suns may be an adverbial genitive (Schwahn 1873: 12f.) but the etymology is obscure
(Holthausen 1934: 307; GED 330; ignored in AHDR); Dunkel tentatively proposes *sm-sí or
*sńh2i-s (LIPP 2.672, 712, 727)
sunus (m -u-) ‘son’ = ON sonr, sunr, OS, OHG sunu, OE sunu son < Gmc. *sunuz < IE *suhx-
nú-s [?*seuhx- ‘bear, produce’ LIV 538] with shortening of *sūnúz (or loss of the laryngeal)
by Dybo’s Law (§2.14; Neri 2003: 280–6; EDPG 492f.; oxytonic shortening HGE 388; excep-
tional loss of laryngeal LHE2 97)
swa (adv) ‘as, so, thus’
(i) Verbal modifier, e.g. swa qiþa izwis (Lk 15:10) ‘thus/so I say to you’, aiw ni swa
gase un (Mk 2:12) ‘they never saw so (i.e. anything like this)’
(tau)jaina izwis mans swa jah jūs taujaiþ im (Mt 7:12)
‘let men do to you as you would do to them’
(ii) Adjectival modifier, esp. with swe ‘as . . . as’, e.g. swa managai ( . . . ) swe (10x, 4 dupl) ‘as
many as’, swa filu auk swe fauragameliþ warþ (Rom 15:4B) ‘for as much as was written
down before’
The frequently adduced source is dial. IE *swe-h2-d, like Arch. Lat. svād (1x Festus) ‘so,
thus’ (AHDR 89, HGE 397f.), which is probably secondarily ablativized (LIPP 2.763), but
that should have given Goth. *swo. Plain *swa suffices (LIPP 2.763)
sware (adv 15x, 2 dupl ~ swarei 2Cor 6:1B) ‘in vain’: no Germanic cognates, and no clear ety-
mology (GED 333); possibly from something like *swa re(h1) eh1 ‘gerade so zurück’ (LIPP
2.764f.)
swarts* (adj -a-) ‘black’ (acc sg n swart Mt 5:36) = ON svartr ‘black; baneful’, OS suart ‘black,
dark’, OHG swarz ‘id.’, OE sweart ‘black, blue; dark, swarthy; gloomy; dismal’ < Gmc.
*swart-a-z < dial. IE *sword-o- ‘black, dirty’; cf. Lat. sordēs ‘dirt, filth, stain’ (AHDR 89, HGE
392; EDL 576 with hesitation; ignored in EDPG)
swaswe ‘(just) as’ (swa + swe): adv freq (traditional classification) and conj (17x). A few func-
tions follow:
(i) Comparisons between clauses ‘(just) as’ (GrGS 276):
fri|jos ins swaswe | frijos mik (Sk 5.4.18ff.) (Falluomini 2016a: 291)
‘you love them just as you love me’
[cf. frijodes ins swaswe mik frijodes (Jn 17:23) ‘you loved them . . . ’]
wair ist haubiþ qenais swaswe jah Xristus haubiþ aikklesjons (Eph 5:23A)
‘the man is head of the wife just as also Christ (is) head of the church’ (§4.13)
(ii) Capacity ‘as’:
swaswe unwita qiþa (2Cor 11:23B)
‘I speak as a fool’
[= Lat. velut īnsipiēns dīcō ‘id.’ (Kauffmann 1903: 454);
contrast the Gk. paraphronõn lalõ ‘I talk being deranged’]
Appendix: Supplemental information 553
8 For both swe and swaswe the Greek has hōs ‘as’ and the Vulgate sīcut ‘(just) as’. Some pre-Vulgate
translations have quasi ‘as (if)’ in place of one or the other sīcut (VL 1972: 40).
554 Appendix: Supplemental information
the Slavic loanword OCS gotovŭ ‘ready, finished’, generally traced to a root *deuh2- / *deh2u-
‘fit together’ (EDPG 511). LIV 123 takes *taujan- as a possible causative ?*douh2-éye- to the
same root. Another idea is causative-iterative *dh3ou-éyo- [*dh3éu- ‘give, dedicate’]; cf. OCS
-davati ‘offer’, OLat. duit ‘dedicated’, etc. (Markey 2012: 94–7; Mees 2013: 335–8, 345, both
w. lit). This was possibly originally an aorist *d(e)uh3- (EDL 182). In any event, the old idea
of a denominal to *tawō ‘tool, implement’ of unknown origin (GED 342, AHDR 89, HGE
403) is no longer generally accepted.
timrjan* (spelled timbrjan Lk 14:28, 30), 3sg -timrida, timridedun (1x), timriþs* (wk 1) ‘build’
(ga-timrjan* ‘build (up), construct’) = ON timbra ‘build of timber’, OS timbrōn ‘id.’, OHG
zimbarōn ‘id.’, OE timbr(i)an ‘build, construct’ < Gmc. *timrijan- (LHE 222) < Pre-Gmc.
*temrjan- denom to *tem-ra- (n): ON timbr ‘timber’, OS timbar ‘carpenter’s work’, OHG
zimbar ‘timber’, OE timber ‘timber, building, structure’ < *dem(h2)-ro- [*demh2- ‘build’ LIV
114f.; the root is simply *dem- Nikolaev 2011; Miller 2014a] (GED 345, HGE 404, EDPG 517)
tiuhan, -tauh, tauhun (1x), tauhans (str 2) ‘lead, guide, bring’ = OS tiohan ‘draw’, OHG ziohan
‘id.’, OE tēon ‘id.’ tee, ON PPP toginn ‘drawn’ < Gmc. *teuhan- ‘lead, draw’ [*deuk- ‘lead,
pull, draw’]; cf. Lat. dūc-ere ‘to lead’ (GED 346, AHDR 17, HGE 405, LIV 124)
triu [nom attested in weina-triu ‘grapevine’ §7.4] (n -wa-) ‘(tree)trunk, stick, vine, tree’ = ON
tré ‘tree; beam; rafter; mast’, OS trio, treo (acc) ‘tree(trunk)’, OE trēo(w) ‘tree; wood; woods;
beam, log’ < Gmc. *trewa- (n) ‘tree’ < thematized *drew-o- [*dóru ‘wood; tree’]; cf. Hitt.
tāru- ‘wood’, Gk. dóru ‘wood, tree (trunk); spear’; the derivational process is: *dóru: *dreu-:
*drew-o-m [~ reduplicated *der-drew-om > Hom. déndreon ‘tree’; other speculations in
EDG 316] > Gmc. *trewan (cf. GED 347f., Southern 2002: §3.3, IEL 208, HGE 409f., NWG
201f., IS 343, EDG 349, EDPG 522f., Thöny 2013: 126f.)
tunþus (m -u-) ‘tooth’ (< *tunþ-u- HGE 412) from zero-grade *tunþ- vs. *-o- grade *tanþ- in the
rest of Germanic: ON tonn (f) (pl tennr, teðr), OS tand* (m) (only dat pl tandon), OHG
zan(t) (m), OE tōð (m) (> tooth). Tunþus was reassigned to the -u- stems partly because of
phonological developments (Kahle 1887: 12–18; Lühr 2000a: 271; VG 625–31; LHE2 105) and
partly on the model of other body parts (cf. fotus), esp. kinnus* (2x) ‘cheek’ (Bloomfield
1891: 13; MUN 198; Griepentrog 1995: 155; Yoon 2009: 115; Thöny 2013: 129ff.; Adamczyk
2013: 279), but inherited from an IE -C- stem *h1d-ónt- / *h1d-nt-´ ‘biting’, PrP of *h1ed- ‘eat’
(NWG 444, EDPG 509f.; cf. LHE2 88, 222)
þagkjan (wk 1 -C-) ‘think (over), deliberate, ponder, consider’ = ON þekkja ‘perceive, under-
stand, know, comply’, OS thenkian ‘think (about), consider, contrive’, OHG denchen ‘id.’,
OE þencan /þenčan/ ‘think (about), consider’ < Gmc. *þankjan- ‘to think’ supposedly from
dial. IE caus *tong-éye- [*teng- ‘seem, think’ LIV 629 (Italic-Germanic root)]; cf. OLat.
tongent [Ennius] ‘they know’ (AHDR 93, HGE 416, 429, LHE2 119) but semantically the
formation in Latin and Germanic is stative, which points to an -i- present with radical -o-
grade (EDL 623, EDPG 533f., 551); the most recent suggestion is *tongh-éye- [*tengh- ‘weigh’]
plus a Germanic rule that devoices obstruents after nasals in a VL environment
(Kümmel 2016)
þahan* (wk 3) ‘keep/remain silent’: Gothic alone has /h/ vs. /g/ in the other dialects: ON þegja
‘be silent’ (cf. þagna ‘become silent’), OS thagian* (PrP thagiandi; otherwise forms of thagon*)
‘id.’, OHG dagēn ‘id.’ (Bernharðsson 2001: 220f.) < *tHk-oi- or *tHk-éh1- = Lat. tacēre ‘be
silent’ (GED 353, HGE 415, EDL 604, EDPG 531; implausible *pteh2k- ‘duck, cringe’ LIV 495)
þairh (P + acc) ‘through, per, via’ = OE ðerh ‘id.’; cf. *þurh ‘through’ in OS thurh, OHG thuru(c)h,
dur(u)h, OE þurh, þuruh < Gmc. *þerhwe / *þurhwe < dial. IE *t(e)rh2-kwe or *térh2-h3kwe
556 Appendix: Supplemental information
(EDPG 538) [*terh2- / *treh2- ‘cross over’]; cf. Lat. trāns ‘across’ (GED 354, AHDR 91, HGE
421, LIV 633)
þan (normally with other particles, but occurs alone 595x): a temporal adverb anchored to a
reference time ‘then’ (Gk. tóte) in any position (Ferraresi 2018); a temporal complementizer
‘when, while’ (Gk. hóte) in initial position (§9.30); and a constituent-splitting 2nd position
modality particle ‘now then, moreover, therefore’ (Gk. oũn) (Marold 1881b: 10f.; Moerkerken
1888: 14ff.; Fuß 2003ff.; Ferraresi 2005: 162–6; 2018). In the third function, þan in Matthew
occurs 14x out of 19 in a backgrounded construction with a participle, but in John only 2 out
of 25 occurrences are with a participle, the rest with finite verbs (Klein 2018a).
Þan also translates Gk. gár ‘for’, kaì gár ‘even so’ (Marold 1881b: 28f.), ára ‘then, in that
case’ (1Cor 5:10A), dé ‘but, and’ 31x in Mt, 39x in Mk, 41x in Jn, and 164x in Lk; Gk. oũn
‘now, then’ 1x in Mt and Mk, 4x in Lk, and 36x in Jn (Friedrichsen 1961a: 105); of the 18
correspondents of dé, þan heads the list (Rousseau 2012: 217). The second-position dis-
course particle often follows a verb in the Gospels but a nominal element in the Epistles
(Ferraresi 2018)
Þan is cognate with ON þá ‘then’, OS than ‘id.’, OHG dan ‘id.’, OE þan ‘id.’ < Gmc.
*þan(o) < PIE *tó-m ‘that; at that (time)’ [*tó- dem]; cf. Lat. tum ‘then’ (GED 354, AHDR 92,
HGE 415f., LHE 85)
þande(i) conj (causal) ‘because, since’, (temporal) ‘while’, (conditional Mt 6:30, Jn 5:47) ‘if ’;
alternate forms: þandei (Lk 2x, Epistles 4x), þande (Jn 6x, Lk 1x, Mt 1x, Epistles 4x, Skeireins
1x), e.g. aiwa sijai þata, þandei aban ni kann (Lk 1:34) ‘how shall this be, since I do not
know a man?’; renders Gk. hóti ‘because’, epeí ‘since’, ei ‘if ’ (Pennington 2010: 334f., 358,
413f., 445); cf. unte (below)
1. þanuh adv ‘then’ (20x for Klein 1994, 2018a; 28x for Snædal)9
2. þanuh is a sentence-initial discourse-continuative foregrounding marker ‘now, then,
and’ (most often = Gk. oũn ‘id.’). It occurs 68x (by Klein’s count; 55 less Skeireins in Snædal’s
classification), signals a change of speaker 29x and a change of subject 64x, and is often asso-
ciated with chapter beginnings, e.g. iþ is qaþ: þatei im. (10) þanuh qeþun du imma (Jn 9:9f.)
‘but he said that I am (him). And then they said to him’ (Klein 1994, 2018a; cf. Buzzoni 2009)
1. þaruh adv ‘there’ (5x, 1 dupl)
2. þaruh is a discourse-continuative foregrounding marker ‘now, then, and’ (most often = Gk.
oũn ‘id.’). It occurs 68x exclusively in the Gospels (+ 2x in Skeireins, both in quotes: 8.1.15ff.
= Jn 7:45, 3.1.2ff. = Jn 3:23 [not in extant Gothic corpus]), but only 2x in Matthew (9:3, 18)
and 4x in Mark (10:20, 24; 14:64, 16:6) vs. 20x in Luke and 41x in John. Matthew prefers
þanuh (q.v.). Þaruh is always sentence-initial but rare at discourse breaks like chapter begin-
nings, and signals a change of speaker 34x and a change of subject 67x, e.g. frah þan ina
Iesus qiþands: a ist namo þein? þaruh qaþ: harjis (Lk 8:30) ‘then Jesus asked him, saying,
“What is your name?”, and he said “Legion”. ’ (Klein 1994, 2018a; cf. Ferraresi & Goldbach
2004: 85–8; Buzzoni 2009)
9 The classification is based on the Greek text, presupposing a correct understanding of it. However, the
tradition ignored the fact that Gk. tóte ‘then’ “plays the same kind of special role as a discourse articulator
in Matthew that oũn plays in John” (Klein 1994: 260, w. lit). That is, Goth. þanuh in Matthew corresponds
to þaruh in John (see 2.þaruh). The Matthew translator’s preference for þanuh (16x in Klein 1994: 255; 17x
in Snædal) is likely prompted by Gk. tóte. Beyond that, þaruh is restricted to the Gospels, while þanuh
occurs 7x (2 dupl) in the Epistles (1Cor 14:25A, 15:28A [2x], 54A[2x]/B; Col 3:4A/B; 1Thess 5:3B) plus 2x
in Skeireins (both in quotes: 7.4.10ff. = Jn 6:12, 7.4.18ff. = Jn 6:13).
Appendix: Supplemental information 557
þau(h): four different words are recognized (numbering after Snædal). Sturtevant (1928c) com-
bines them by an adversative value.
1. þau (cmp conj §4.34), e.g. frijondans wiljan seinana mais þau guþ (2Tim 3:4A/B) ‘loving
their own desire more than God’; goþ þus ist galeiþan . . . þau . . . gawairpan in gaiainnan
(Mk 9:45) ‘it is good for you to enter . . . than to be cast into hell’ (§5.29). It is unusual to have
þau with goþ rather than batizo ‘better’. Goþ is a lexical Semitism; the older language had no
comparative (Wolfe 2018a)
2. þau(h) (disjunctive conj in complex questions, with Q -u(h) usually in both clauses) ‘or;
whether . . . or (whether)’, e.g. bi þo laisein fram-uh guda sijai, þau ik-u fram mis silbin rodja
(Jn 7:17) ‘(will learn) about my teaching, whether it is from God, or whether I speak on my
own’, skuld-u ist kaisaragild giban kaisara, þau ni-u gibaima (Mk 12:14) ‘is it lawful to give
tribute to Caesar, or should we not give it?’
With pronominal alternatives, a simple þau suffices: ana wileiþ ei fraletau izwis?
Barabban þau Iesu (Mt 27:17) ‘whom do you wish that I release to you? Barabbas or Jesus?’.
Other words and phrases are conjoined by aiþþau ‘or’ (1.aiþþau in Snædal), e.g. saei frijoþ
attan aiþþau aiþein ufar mik (Mt 10:37) ‘whoever loves his father or mother over me’
(Moerkerken 1888: 17f.; Schaaffs 1904: 44–7).
3. þau (18x) ~ þauh (5x) apodotic in conditionals ‘then, in that case’; negated ni þau (ni þauh
4x) in 11 of its 23 occurrences; limited to the Gospels, except for Rom 9:29A 2x; 1Cor 11:31,
15:14A; Sk 1.3.11 (all þau)
iþ blindai weseiþ, ni þau habaidedeiþ frawaurhtais (Jn 9:41)
‘but if you were blind, you would not then have sin’
iþ weiseis her, ni þauh gaswulti meins broþar (Jn 11:32)
‘but had you been here, my brother would not have died’
jabai jūs ni afletiþ, ni þau atta izwar sa in himinam afletiþ (Mk 11:26)
‘if you do not forgive, then your father in heaven will not forgive’
jabai allis Mose galaubidedeiþ, ga-þau-laubidedeiþ mis (Jn 5:46)
‘if you had believed Moses at all, you would then have believed me’,
A strengthened form is 3. aiþþau (11x, 1 dupl), e.g.
jabai frijodedeiþ mik, aiþþau jūs faginodedeiþ (Jn 14:28)
‘if you loved me, then in that case you would rejoice’10
4. þau (adv 8x) ‘just, even; perhaps, by chance’, e.g. bedun ina ei þau skauta wastjos is attai-
tokeina (Mk 6:56) ‘they begged him that they (be allowed to) touch even the border of his
robe’.
As to etymology, 1 & 2. þau derive from *tó 2.h2u ‘and then’ (LIPP 2.776, w. lit); for þauh
‘though’, cf. ON þó ‘though, yet, nevertheless’, OS thōh ‘yet, still, however, nevertheless’, OHG
10 According to Rousseau (e.g. 2016: 582), þau is a disjunctive apodotic ‘or else’, and aiþþau means liter-
ally ‘and/or’. This is contingent on his own interpretation of the etymologies and the assumption that the
etymological constituency remained transparent.
558 Appendix: Supplemental information
tho(h), doh ‘id.’, OE þēah ‘id.’ < dial. IE *tó 2.h2u 1.kwe (LIPP 2.776; different details in GED
356, AHDR 92, HGE 418, Ivanov 1999, EDHIL 816)
þaurban* (prt prs §5.30) ‘need’ = ON þurfa ‘need, want’, OS thurvan* (tharf etc.) ‘must, need,
have cause to’, OHG durfan ‘dare’, OE þurfan* (þearf etc.) ‘need; must; be obliged; have
cause to; owe’ < Gmc. *þurfan- < *trp-e/o- [*terp- ‘use; be satisfied’ EDPG 552]; cf. Gk. tér-
pein ‘satisfy, delight’, mid ‘enjoy’ (cf. LIV 636, HGE 429)
þaurnus* (m -u-) ‘thorn plant’ < *þurnuz; the rest of Germanic has a masc -a- stem: ON þorn
‘thorn’, OS thorn, OHG dorn, OE þorn < Gmc. *þornaz ‘thorn’, earlier *þur-na- < IE *tr-no-
[*(s)ter-n- ‘thorny plant’]; cf. Ved. trna- (n) ‘grass, blade’ (GED 357, AHDR 86, HGE 430,
Neri 2003: 286ff., NWG 372f., EDPG 552f.)
þaurp (n -a- 1x acc sg) ‘(farm)land’ [glossed ‘field’ in LHE2 118, but it is opposed to uninhab-
ited akrs (q.v.) and haiþi* ‘uncultivated field’: Scardigli 1973: 291f.]: jah þaurp ni gastaistald
(Neh 5:16) ‘and I did not procure/acquire land’ (Gk. agrón ‘field, (farm)land’). Cognates
include OS thorp* ‘village; place, estate’, OHG thorf, dorf ‘id.’, ON þorp ‘isolated farm’ and
in foreign countries ‘village’, OE þrop ‘hamlet; small subsidiary settlement’ partly coexisting
with þorp / thorp(e) (< ODan. thorp ‘hamlet, village’ EIE 104f.) < PGmc. *þurpa- < European
*treb- / *trb-o- ‘dwelling’ (GED 357f., AHDR 93, HGE 430, NWG 87, EDPG 553, LHE2 118)
þeihan (str 1) ‘thrive, prosper, advance, increase, grow’ = OS thīhan* (thian Gen 100) ‘prosper,
be advantageous (to), thrive, grow up’, OHG dīhan ‘become powerful, grow’, OE þēon / þīon
(str 1/3) ‘thrive, prosper’ < *þinhan- / įxaną/ < *ténk-on-om, PP *þunganaz < *tnk-on-os.
The verb has been related to Lith. teñka (3sg tèkti) ‘fall to (someone), receive; (something)
falls on (someone to do something)’ (cf. GED 359, LHE2 174); also suggested is Lith. tinkù,
tìkti ‘suit, be fitting, match, agree’ < *tnk-e- and/or OIr. tocad ‘fortune, chance, good luck’,
MW tynghet ‘destiny, fate’ < *tonk-eto- (EDPG 542; cf. EDPC 383f.); less likely is *temk-
‘become fast, coagulate’ (pace LIV 625, HGE 421)
þeins ‘your’ = ON þinn / þín, OS thīn, OHG thīn, dīn, OE þīn thine / thy < Gmc. *þīna- < dial.
IE *tei-no- (LIPP 2.813; cf. dat-loc 2.*te-i LIPP 2.808) [1.*tú-, 2.*té- ‘you, thee’] (LIPP
2.805–14); less likely *t(w)e-i(H)no- (GED 360, AHDR 93, HGE 423f., EDPG 541 *t-iHno-)
þiubs (m -a-) ‘thief ’ = ON þjófr ‘id.’, OS thiof ‘id.’, OHG diob, diub ‘id.’, OE þēof (< thief ) <
Gmc. *þeuba- (etym. unclear HGE 422, EDPG 539)
þiuda (f -ō-) ‘people, nation’, pl ‘gentiles, heathens’, used of Greeks 6x but possibly as a reli-
gious designation, different from the ethnic term Kreks (5x, 1 dupl) ‘Greek’ (Laird 1940:
195ff.; cf. Jellinek 1923; Seebold 1971: 32f.). Kreks in all but one instance is contrasted with
‘Jew’ and never means simply ‘heathen’ (Seebold 1971: 32f.). Most occurrences of Héllēnes
‘Greeks’ and tà éthnē / hoi ethnikoí ‘the people/heathens’ really mean ‘non-Jews’ and are
normally translated with Goth. þiudos ‘people; heathens’. In one passage (Gal 2:3A/B),
Kreks is used of Titus and not contrasted with ‘Jew’. While technically ambiguous (Masser
1968: 201), it probably means ‘Greek’ (Seebold 1971: 32). Krekos is used in the one passage
(1Cor 1:22A) in which Gk. Héllēnes means ‘Greeks’ (Seebold 1971: 32). In its sole occurrence,
haiþno (Mk 7:26) ‘a heathen woman’ translates Gk. Hellēnís, which cannot mean ‘Greek
(woman)’ here (Masser 1968: 207; Seebold 1971: 33; see §8.34)
Relatives include ON þjóð ‘people, nation’ (partly < *þiudiz), OS thiod(a) ‘id.’, OHG
diot(a) (m) ‘id.’, OE þēod ‘id.’ < Gmc. *þeudō- < West IE *te/out-éh2 ‘tribe, town, society’; cf.
Oscan touto ‘citizenry, community’ (AHDR 92, HGE 423, LHE 103, EDL 618f., EDPG 540;
pace NWG 321, 455 *teuh2-téh2-) but a preform *teu-teh2 ‘common people’ is plausible
(McCone 1987; Mallory & Adams 1997: 417)
Appendix: Supplemental information 559
þiudans (m -a-) ‘king’ (lit. ‘head of a þiuda (people, nation)’, q.v.) = ON þjóðann ‘prince, king’,
OS thiodan ‘ruler, Lord’, OE þēoden ‘king; lord; God’ < Gmc. *þeudanaz < West IE *teut-o-
no- [*teut- ‘tribe, town, society’] (§8.35); cf. Lat. Teutōnī ‘the Teutons’ (borrowed via Celtic)
(GED 361f., AHDR 92, HGE 422, LSDE 151)
þius* (m -a-) ‘boy, (household) servant’ (pl nom þiwos Neh 5:16, 1Tim 6:1B, gen þiwe Lk 16:13)
= OE thēow ‘servant’, OS thio-līco ‘humbly’ < Gmc. *þewa- < *teu-o-, supposedly a Germanic
root (EDPG 541), but at least contamination with the root *teu- of *teu-teh2 ‘common peo-
ple’ (see þiuda) is possible (Shields 2006, taking the root to be *tekw- ‘run’ (LIV 620f.); cf.
Pausch 1954: 45; Weber 1991: 105; Thöny 2013: 119f.; other speculations in NWG 160)
þragjan* (wk 1) ‘to run’ = OE þrægan ‘id.’ < Gmc. *þragjan- < European *trogh-éye- [*tregh-
‘run’]; cf. Gk. trékhein ‘to run’ (Sturtevant 1938: 469ff.; EDPG 544) but fut/aor thrék-s- sug-
gests a root *dhregh- (LIV 154); for the assimilation of *tregh- to *dhregh- cf. dragan*)
þreihan*, *þraih, þraihun, þraihans (str 1 < 3) ‘press, crowd, throng, constrict’ = ON þryngva
‘press’, OS thringan ‘penetrate’, OHG dringan ‘oppress, drive’, OE þringan ‘press, throng’
< *þriŋhwan- / *þriŋgwan- < older *þreŋχwan- / *þreŋγwan- [*trenk- ‘press’]; cf. Lith. trenk-iù
‘I push roughly, fling’ (GED 365, HGE 426, LIV 649)
þugkjan*, 3sg þūhta (wk 1 -C-) ‘have the impression, appear, suppose, deem’; impers ‘seem’ =
ON þykkja, þótti ‘seem, seemed’, OS thunkian* (thunkean), thūhta ‘id.’, OHG dunchen,
dūhta ‘id.’, OE þyncan /þünčan/, þūhte ‘id.’ < PGmc. *þuŋkjan- ‘to seem’, *þųxtē ‘(it) seemed’,
usually derived from dial. IE *tng-yé- (see þagkjan)
-u ‘Q’: 2nd position clitic asking (mostly) yes or no direct and indirect questions (Jones 1958c).
The answer is not presupposed, and some questions have ironic content, some have emo-
tive (surprise or disappointment) impact (Ferraresi 2005: 148ff.), but possibly more in the
speech act domain (Buzzoni 2009), some are rhetorical, and -u is optional in non-canonical
questions (Pagliarulo 2011b). Since -u is associated with the complementizer position, what-
ever lexical category adjoins to it is forced to the left periphery inducing prefix-verb tmesis
(Grewolds 1932; see §11.14), e.g. ga-u-laubeis du sunau gudis (Jn 9:35) ‘do you believe in the
son of God?’. When negated, ni adjoins to -u, as in ni-u galaubeis (Jn 14:10) ‘do you not
believe?’ (Eythórsson 1995: 134, 137ff.); see ni-u (above)
Importantly, -u can also have a local constituent domain:
ƕas frawaurhta, sa-u þau fadrein is, ei blinds gabaurans warþ (Jn 9:2)
‘who sinned, this (man) or his parents, that he was born blind?’ (§9.47)
The origin is PIE 2.*h2u, a variant of 2.*-h2o ‘to that, also, and’ (LIPP 2.334ff.; cf. GED 371;
Klein & Condon 1993: 34–46)
ubils (adj -a-) ‘bad, evil, wicked, unhealthy, ill’11 = OS, OHG ubil ‘bad, wicked, evil’, OE yfel
‘bad, ill, evil’ < Gmc. *ubilaz < PIE *up-elo- ‘over/beyond (what is permitted)’ (LIPP 2.832;
cf. GED 371, HGE 433, EDPG 557), but if connected to Hitt. hwapp- / hupp- ‘throw (down);
be hostile towards, do evil against’, the reconstruction must be *h2up-élo-s (LHE2 96) or
the like; Hittite requires *h2woph1- (EDHIL 369ff.); the connection is rejected by Kroonen
because ‘do evil’ evolved from ‘overthrow’, but Kloekhorst places the semantic development
in PIE (EDHIL 371)
11 A list of transgressions that count as ubil- ‘evil’ is listed in Mk 7:21f.: kalkinassjus, horinassjus,
maurþra, | þiubja, faihufrikeins, unseleins, liutei, aglaitei, augo unsel, wajamereins, hauhhairtei, unwiti
‘illicit sex acts, acts of adultery, murders, thefts, acts of greed, wicked deeds, deceit, debauchery, wicked
eye (envy), slander, arrogance, ignorance’ (cf. Pausch 1954: 96).
560 Appendix: Supplemental information
ufar ‘over’ = OS obar (o ar, ouar, etc.), OHG obar, OE ofer (> over) < Gmc. *úfer / *ubér < PIE
*up-ér ‘over, above’; cf. Gk. hupér ‘id.’ (GED 372, AHDR 94, LHE 118, LIPP 2.835f.; not
*h1uperi, pace HGE 433, EDPG 557); since Goth. ufar is a preposition and verbal prefix
(§6.17, 36), presumably with different stress configurations, Gothic evidently generalized
*úfer or lost Verner’s Law (Patrick Stiles, p.c.), while the rest of Gmc. points to *ubér.
-(u)h [infrequently assimilates only to þ in cod. Arg. (except for Luke) and cod. Ambr. B; in A it
assimilates to k, s, b, d, g, m, n, l, r; there are also examples in C and E (Skeireins) (details in
Janko 1908: 64ff.)]: anaphoric-sequential ‘and’ (Klein 2018a) conjoins main clauses cohe-
sively or continuatively (Klein & Condon 1993; Klein 1994; Ferraresi 2005: 155–62). It does
not occur in the Calendar or Deeds (Schaaffs 1904: 9), or in the Crimean graffiti. In the
Bologna fragment -uh occurs only in in-uh ‘and for this reason’ (§6.13), its most frequent
occurrence in Skeireins (Schaaffs 1904: 9). In the Gospel of John, -(u)h corresponds to Gk.
kaí ‘and’ only 13x out of 176 and more frequently renders other Greek particles, while jah
corresponds to kaí 487x out of 494 (Klein & Condon 1993: 3). Of the 18 correspondents of
Gk. dé, -uh is number 8 (Rousseau 2012: 217). Not surprisingly, -uh is often used contras-
tively (Scherer 1968: 33). Instances of -uh inserted in the absence of a Greek conjunction
occur (Schaaffs 1904: 37ff.). Goth ub-uh-wopida (Lk 18: 38) ‘and he called out’ (Gk. kaì
ebóēsen) is semantically but not structurally equivalent to jah uf-wopida (Lk 1: 42) ‘and she
exclaimed’ = Gk. kaì aneph nēsen (Ivanov 1999). Forms of sah equivalent to Gk. kaì autós
‘and he’ (etc.) are nearly confined to Luke (Schaaffs 1904: 10).12 As to position, -uh generally
attaches to the first word of the conjoined structure (but see §§1.6, 11.14) and forces prefix-
verb tmesis (Grewolds 1932). It precedes þan ‘then’ (§11.13), as in afar-uh þan þans dagans
(Lk 1:24) ‘and after these days’ (GGS 256), in which afar-uh þan introduces a sectional tran-
sition (Klein & Condon 1993: 10). The main exception occurs when -uh forces the verb to
the left periphery and þan is intercalated. Contrast diz-uh-þan-sat (Mk 16:8) ‘and seizes
then’ with dis-sat þan (Lk 7:16) ‘seizes then’ (Eythórsson 1995: 121ff.)
The source is Gmc. *-(u-)hw(e), from PIE *h2u 1.kwe (LIPP 2.340), more traditionally, con-
nective *(a)u plus encl conj and generalizing ptc *kwe ‘and’ (Brugmann 1913; Klein &
Condon 1993; Klein 1994: 255). It is possible that -u- originated by postconsonantal anap-
tyxis: *-C-kwe > *-C-uhw > -uh (Dahlmann 1876: 258f., w. lit; Bethge 1898–1900: 24f.; Mottausch
2001); cf. sa-h, so-h, þo-h, but þiz-uh, weiz-uh, etc. (Lindeman 1967: 147). The semantics of
*u (see Klein & Condon 1993) are claimed to support the connection with Ved. u, but no one
has taken Mottausch (2001) into account. On the other hand, the parallels in LIPP 2.339ff.
render *h2u 1.kwe at least plausible if not indispensable. While monosyllabics do not lose a
final vowel (cf. neg ni < *né), enclitics like *kwe are different (LHE2 142)
Everyone agrees that there was no *u in *ne kwe > Goth. ni-h, Lat. ne-que, etc. ‘and not’
(Klein & Condon 1993: 47–50; LIPP 2.692)
ulbandus* (m -u-) ‘camel’ (gen ulbandaus Mk 1:6, dat ulbandau Mk 10:25, Lk 18:25) < *ulbandu-;
cf. OS olvundio* (m -n-) (Heliand 3299 acc sg olbundeon M, oluuendeon C), OHG olbent
(m), olbento (m), -a (f), OE olfend (m), olfende (m/f) < *ulbandjan-, and the strange ON
ulfaldi (m) — all meaning ‘camel’: supposedly from Lat. elephantus ‘elephant’ via a form
*elpandus (GED 375; Francovich Onesti 2011: 201) or a putative Vulgar Latin *olip/fant-
(> OFrench olifant, etc.), which is difficult phonologically and semantically, and the Germanic
12 The strong demonstrative sah ‘this’ (§3.4) may go back to *só-ḱe (Rousseau 2016: 583) with ḱe ‘this’
(LIPP 2.396–400).
Appendix: Supplemental information 561
wahsjan (str 6) ‘grow, wax, increase in development’ = ON vexa ‘make grow’ < iterative-
causative *h2woks-éye- [*h2eug- ‘strengthen’ / *h2wek-s- ‘grow’ LIV 274f., 288f.], but an ordinary
thematic present in NWGmc. *wahsan: ON vaxa ‘grow’, OHG wahsan ‘id.’, OE we(a)xan
(str 6/7) ‘wax, grow, increase’ (cf. GED 387, AHDR 6, HGE 439, EDPG 566 [wahsjan
secondary *-ye- present, but why the *-o- grade?], LHE2 134)
waian*, *waiwo, waiwoun, *waians (str 7) ‘blow’ = MDu waien ‘id.’ (cf. OHG wāen [wk 2] ‘id.’,
OE pres wæweð ‘blows’) < Gmc. *wē(j)an- < *h2weh1-yo-nom, pret 1/3sg wai-wo < *h2we-
h2woh1-(h2)e [*h2weh1- ‘blow’ LIV 287]; cf. Skt. vati ‘blows’ (AHDR 95, HGE 460f., EDPG
576, LHE2 159)
wair (m -a-) ‘man’ = ON verr, OS, OHG wer, OE wer ‘id.’ wer(e)(wolf) < Gmc. *wiraz < PIE
*wih1-ró-s ‘young; warrior’ [*weiH- ‘be vigorous’] with shortening of *wīráz (or loss of the
laryngeal) by Dybo’s Law (§2.14; EDPG 588); cf. Lat. vir ‘man’ etc.; for Ringe, the develop-
ment is simply exceptional (LHE2 97)
wairpan (str 3) ‘cast, pelt, throw’ = ON verpa ‘throw; cast up; calculate; lay eggs’, OS uuerpan
‘throw, hurl, cast’, OHG werfan ‘id.’, OE weorpan ‘cast, throw, fling’ < Gmc. *werpan- ‘sling,
throw’, possibly from the root *wergw- ‘bend’ (EDPG 581; other etymological proposals in
HGE 457)
wairþan, (str 3 §5.7) ‘become; come to pass; happen’ = ON verða ‘id.’, OS werðan ‘id.’, OHG
werdan ‘id.’, OE weorðan ‘come to pass, happen; become’; as auxiliary ‘be’ < Gmc. *werþan-
‘become’ < dial. IE *wért-e/o- ‘turn into’ [*wert- ‘turn’ LIV 691f.]; cf. Lat. vert-ere ‘to turn’
(GED 391, AHDR 99, HGE 457f., LHE2 116, 181); *wert- may be from a composite root *we
ret- ‘run away’ (LIPP 2.844)
wakan* ‘be awake, watchful, vigilant’ (stative, generally classified as str 6 [e.g. Snædal; uncer-
tain GG 165, but prob wk 3) = ON vaka ‘be awake, watch’ (with vakinn ‘awake’), OE wacan
‘come into being, be born’ < Gmc. wakan- [*weg- ‘be lively, animated, strong’ LIV 660f.];
cf. Lat. vegēre ‘enliven’ (AHDR 95, GPA 645f., HGE 442, EDL 657f., EDPG 568). Germanic
cognates are wk 3, wakan likely is also (see e.g. EbgW 28; VEW 535; Jasanoff 1973: 850f.;
NWG 365, 482; Gorbachov 2007: 70; thanks to Patrick Stiles, p.c., for extensive discussion
of this verb)
waldan ‘rule, manage’ (§4.43) = ON valda ‘rule over; wield; cause’, OS uualdan ‘have command
over; be in charge of; possess’, OHG waltan ‘have power over, rule, prevail’, OE wealdan ‘have
power over, control; possess; rule, govern; wield; cause’ < Gmc. *waldan- ‘have power over,
rule’, standardly derived from dial. IE *wélH-dhe- [*welH- ‘be strong, have power’] (HGE
443, LIV 676) but Kroonen makes it an -o- grade present to a pret *wulþōn- < *h2ulh1-t-
(EDPG 569)
wandjan* (ga-wandjan) (wk 1) ‘(cause to) turn; convert’ = ON venda ‘wend, turn; change; con-
vert’, OS uuendian ‘turn (over), change, remove’, OHG wenten ‘id.’, OF wenda ‘turn, cause
to move, change direction’, OE wendan ‘turn; convert; cause to move; go’ < Gmc. *wandjan-
‘cause to turn’ < European caus *wondh-éye- [*wendh- ‘wind, turn’ LIV 681f.] caus of
*windan- ‘wind’ (GED 393, EWDS 885, HGE 446, EDPG 573, 587)
(daura)-wards ‘(door)-keeper’ [M -a-] (§7.4) = OS ward ‘guardian, protector’, OHG wart ‘id.’,
OE weard / uard ‘id.’ < Gmc. *ward-a-z, derived from the verb *ward-ē- ‘stand or keep
guard’ (OHG wartēn, OE weardian) [*wer- LIV 685f.] ‘be aware, wary, watch’ (GED 394,
NWG 67)
wasjan* (wk 1 §5.15) ‘clothe, dress’: Gothic alone has /s/ vs. */z/ in the other dialects (Bernharðsson
2001: 214ff.): ON verja, OS werian2* ‘equip; cover, dress’, OHG werian, OE werian ‘clothe;
Appendix: Supplemental information 563
wear’ < Gmc. *wazjan- < PIE causative *wos-éye- [*wes- ‘clothe’ LIV 692f.]; cf. Lat. vestis
‘garment’ (GED 395, AHDR 101, HGE 450, EDPG 576, LHE2 150)
waurd (n -a-) ‘word’ (132x). All semantic functions are documented in Aston (1958: 26, 30–7);
cf. Regan (1972: 79–82). It forms the basis of 17 compounds, all likely Greek calques (Kind
1901: 4–9) = ON orð, OS uuord, OHG wort, OE word < Gmc. *wurda- (n) ‘word’ < dial. IE
*wr(h1)-dho- [*werh1- ‘say’ LIV 689f.] (GED 396, AHDR 100, HGE 475) or dial. IE *wrh1-
tóm ‘(thing) said, utterance’ (LHE2 101), also proposed for Lat. verbum ‘word; verb’ from
pre-Italic *wrtho- by laryngeal metathesis (Olsen 2003: 260), but absence of early Lat. *vor-
bum indicates an -e- grade formation (HLFL 104), Proto-Italic *werþo- (EDL 664), often
assumed to be from IE *wer(h1)-dho- or a compound *werh1-dhh1-o- ‘utterance-producing,
making a statement’ (Hackstein 2002b: 14, NWG 87f., LSDE 47, EDL 664), or more simply
*(h2)u(e/or)dh-o- (VG 112f., EDPG 600) or *w(e)rdh-o- (MPIE 2.1.3), most likely *wérdh-o- :
collective *wrdh-é-h2- (Steer 2014)
waurkjan (wk 1 -C-) ‘do, work’ = ON yrkja ‘work; till, cultivate; make verses; set about’, OS
wurkian* (only 3sg (vu)orkid) ‘work’, OHG wurchen ‘id.’, OE wyrc(e)an /würčan/ work; make;
perform; effect’ < Gmc. *wurkjan- < PIE *wrg-yé- [*werg- ‘work, make’] (Bammesberger
1988; Forssman 1993; HGE 476; LIV 686ff.; LHE 114; EDPG 600; Neri 2016: 25); *werg- may
be from a composite root *we reg- ‘carry out, perform’ (LIPP 2.844)
weih-s (adj -a-) ‘holy, sanctified; saint’, a state that must be attained, for instance, by prayer and
righteous actions; cf. us-weihs* (3x, 2 dupl) ‘(fallen) out of holiness’ (Lacy 1979: 288ff.), orig
a pagan term that became Christianized (Velten 1930: 494) = OS wīh-(dag) ‘holi(day)’,
OHG wīh ‘holy’ (Germ. Weihnacht [holy night] ‘Christmas’), OE wīg-(bedd) ‘altar’ < Gmc.
*wīh-a-z [W.Eur. *wéik-o- ‘consecrated, holy’] (AHDR 97; HGE 466; Boutkan 1995: 266f.;
NWG 224, 563f.; EDPG 585)
*weih-a- (m/n) ‘temple’ (EDPG 586): ON vé (n) ‘id.’, OS wīh (m) ‘id.’, OE wēoh, wīg (m)
‘idol’ (see the Pietroassa ring §1.3)
wein (n -a-) ‘wine’ = ON vín, OS, OHG wīn, OE wīn wine < Gmc. *wīnan, an early borrowing
from Lat. vīnum ‘id.’ (GGS 184, AHDR 101, HGE 467, EIE 22f., 55)
weitwoþs* (m -C-) ‘witness’ < PGmc. *wītwōd- ‘id.’ < PIE *wéid-wō(t)s / *wid-us-´, an old per-
fect participle (Bammesberger 1986a: 103; Thöny 2013: 89, w. lit), derived from 2.witan
‘watch, observe’ [*weid- ‘see’ LIV 665ff.]; cf. Gk. eid s, gen eidót-os ‘knowing’, OPr. waide-
wut ‘priest’ (CGG 189, PWGA 292f., AHDR 96, Bernharðsson 2001: 84, NWG 568, EDPG
589, LHE2 224)
wepn* (n -a-) ‘weapon’ = ON vápn, vákn, vámn, OS wāpan* (e.g. gen sg uuapnes), OHG wāfan,
OE wæmn, wæp(e)n ‘weapon’ < Gmc. *wēbna- / *wēpna-, a thematized derivative of an -n-
stem agentive *wēbō, gen *wē(p)paz ‘one who waves, brandishes’ (Lühr 1982: ii. 729; 1988:
341; NWG 324, EDPG 577)
wigs ‘road, way’ (m -a-) = ON vegr ‘way, road; mode, manner; direction; side’, OS uueg ‘way,
road’, OHG weg ‘id.’, OE weg ‘way, road; journey; manner, mode’ < Gmc. *weg-a-z [*wegh-
‘travel, transport’] (GED 204f., AHDR 96, HGE 452, LIV 661f., NWG 51, EDPG 577f.)
wilja (m -n-) ‘will; willingness; wish, desire; intention’ (Trofimova 2017: 191f.) = ON vili ‘will,
wish, desire; delight’, OS uuillio ‘will, wish, desire; intention ; benefit, pleasure, satisfaction;
joy, grace, favor’, OHG will(i)o ‘desire, wish’, OE willa ‘will, disposition; desire, pleasure,
delight; wish, purpose, intention, design; resolution’ < Gmc. *wel-jan-, derived from the
verb *weljan- (Goth. wiljan) ‘wish, want’ [*welh1- ‘wish, select’ LIV 677f.] (GED 403, AHDR
97f., HGE 453, GG §108, NWG 255, EDPG 578f.)
564 Appendix: Supplemental information
wilwan (str 3) ‘steal, seize, plunder, ransack’ < Gmc. *welwan- [*wel- ‘turn, roll’]; cf. Lat.
vell-e-re ‘pluck, tear, plunder’ (HGE 454, LIV 675)
winds (m -a-) ‘wind’ = ON vindr, OHG wint, OS, OF, OE wind wind < Gmc. *windaz < *wen-
daz < *wēntos (cf. Lat. ventus ‘id.’ HGE 454) < post-PIE *h2weh1-ent-ó- ‘windy’ (Neri 2016: 16)
or *h2weh1-nt-ó- (LHE2 95f., 174); cf. waian ‘blow’ [*h2weh1- ‘blow’ LIV 287]
wini- (m -i-) ‘friend’ in names, e.g. Ostrogoth. Winigildus = runic winiz, ON vinr, OHG
wini, OE wine ‘friend’ < Gmc. *win-iz < earlier *wen-iz ‘friend’ < *wenh1-es- [*wenH- LIV
682f. / *wenh1- EDL 663 / *Hwenh1- EDPG 579]; cf. Lat. venus ‘Venus, love, charm’; the
change to *win-iz (ASPK 79f., LHE 123–8) allowed for reanalysis of the *-es- stem as an -i-
stem (MUN 137f., HGE 455, NWG 168, Thöny 2013: 206–10)
winnan (str 3) ‘endure, suffer’ = ON vinna ‘to work, perform, do; attend to; win, gain; over-
come; withstand’, OS uuinnan ‘struggle, fight, win; achieve, acquire; suffer, endure’, OHG
winnan ‘labor; win’, OE winnan ‘labor, work, strive after; struggle, strive, fight; win, get;
suffer, undergo’ < Gmc. *winnan- ‘suffer’ < IE *w(e)n-nu- [*wen- ‘overpower, win’ LIV 680f.]
or *wen-nw-e- (EDPG 587f., 599)
1./3.wisan (1./3.wisan §5.9 [numbering follows Snædal]) ‘be, exist; stay, remain’ = ON/EON
vesa, ON vera ‘be, exist; dwell, stay’, OS uuesan ‘be, exist; stay, OHG wesan, OE wesan ‘be,
exist, dwell, happen’ < Gmc. *wesan- < PIE *h2wés-e- [*h2wes- ‘spend the night; stay’]
(LIV 293f., EDPG 582), possibly a composite root *h2u h1es- ‘be there’ (LIPP 2.333)
The hapax ga-wisan* is a long-standing problem (thanks to Patrick Stiles for extensive
discussion): ni gawasiþs was jah in garda ni gawas, ak in hlaiwasnom (Lk 8:27) ‘he was not
dressed and did not take residence in a house, but among the monuments’. Beer (1918b)
objects to the perfective interpretation. He notes that Gk. ménein ‘stay’ is rendered by other
verbs in Gothic and that gawas would be a better translation of aor émeinen than of impf
émenen (Vet. Lat. manēbat). That is the crux of the problem, the assumption that Gothic
must render Greek precisely. In fact, ingressive ‘took residence’ can be proleptic to the final
place where he took residence, among the monuments. Beer labels gawas stylistic.
Ga-wisan* is not technically a hapax, since there is also miþ-ga-wisan* (Beer 1918a: 31ff.):
ak þaim hnaiwam miþ-ga-wisandans (Rom 12:16A) ‘but (be) entering into association with
the lowly’. In both of its occurrences ga-wisan* seems to have ingressive semantics. The
problem is sometimes ignored (e.g. Buscko 2011) or ga- is edited out (Martellotti 1972: 243).
Josephson (1976: 169) seems to be on the right track that gawisan “has the sense of ‘stay’,
‘remain’ and refers to a state that is initially limited . . . ”
2. wisan ‘feast, devour’ (§5.9): on the semantics of all three wisan verbs see Martellotti (1972),
Majut (1974), Rosén (1984: 378–87). Formally, 2./3.wisan have nonpast 1sg wisa, 3sg wisiþ
(3.wisan) and 1pl wisam (2.wisan) in contrast to the suppletive nonpast of 1.wisan. Since
forms of wisan supplied the preterite of *h1es- ‘be’, a different nonpast is expected.
Nevertheless, despite attempts to relate all three verbs, *wes- ‘graze, pasture, eat’ is a separate
root (LIV 693f.; see Stiles 1985, 2004, EDL 669, EDHIL 2007f., EDPC 417f., EDPG 582)
1. witan (prt prs) ‘know’ (§§5.22f.) = ON vita ‘know; be conscious; see, look; mean’, OS uuitan
‘know; recognize, understand; know how to, be able to’, OHG wizzan ‘id.’, OE witan ‘know,
be aware; be wise, conscious (of)’ < Gmc. *witan- ‘know’ (Seebold 1973: 163–76). Wait
‘knows’ is from an isolated PIE *woid-e [*weid- ‘see’]; cf. Gk. oĩda ‘I know’, oĩde ‘knows’)
(§5.23). What *woid-e was is disputed: stative (Randall & Jones 2015: 163f., w. lit), unredu-
plicated perfect (LIV 666f.), primary perfect (EDPG 589), probably an anomalous
unreduplicated perfect (MPIE 4.3.3), stative-intransitive aorist with exceptional result-state
Appendix: Supplemental information 565
meaning (Jasanoff, forthcoming).13 If Jasanoff is right that the origin of the perfect is a
reduplicated stative aorist, *woid-e remains in effect a residual unreduplicated (or ‘proto-’)
perfect. Jasanoff links the change of meaning to reduplication, but nothing precludes a prior
semantic development, as in *woid-e, followed by a split between unreduplicated stative
aorists and reduplicated perfects, in which case *woid-e would be a residue pure and simple.
witoþ (n -a-) ‘law’ = OHG wizzōd ‘law; order; divine will; testament; sacrament’; cf. OS, OE witod
‘destined, appointed, ordained’, OE witod-līce ‘certainly’ < Gmc. *witōþa-, originally *wid-ót-
(as in ON vit-að-r ‘known, proved’) to 1.witan ‘know’ (q.v.) (EDPG 590; cf. Bernharðsson
2001: 81f.; see also KM 144; LIV 665ff., HGE 464, NWG 459f.; differently Wagner 2006a:
*wid-a-to-m)
wulfs (m -a-) ‘wolf ’ = ON ulfr, OHG wolf, OS, OF, OE wulf wolf < Gmc. *wulfaz (in early runic
names) by dissimilation from *wulxwaz < PIE *wlkwos (GED 411f., AHDR 102, HGE 473,
LHE2 100, 104), an original barytone (cf. Ved. vrka- ‘wolf ’), hence no VL variants (Kiparsky
2010)
wulþrs* (adj -i-) ‘valuable, important’; often taken as a feminine noun ‘importance, value’
(e.g. Skeat 1868: 276; Regan 1974: 157f.), rejected by Dal (1949, w. lit) in favor of a substantivized
neuter of an -i- stem adj (cf. GED 413, Snædal 2013a: ii. 620). The word is attested only in
the gen sg n wulþrais and as a comparative nom pl m wulþrizans:
ni waiht mis wulþrais ist (Gal 2:6A ~ wulþris B)
lit. ‘is nothing of valuable/important to me’
[Gk. oudén moi diaphérei ‘it does not matter to me’]
niu jūs mais wulþrizans sijuþ þaim (Mt 6:26)
‘are you not more valuable than they?’
[Gk. oukh hūmeĩs mãllon diaphérete autõn ‘do you not matter more than they?’]
13 The analysis by Tanaka (2011) is based on Jasanoff ’s earlier analogical account of wait, and requires
many additional analogies. See the detailed critique by Randall & Jones (2015).
R EFER ENCES
Abney, Steven P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation,
Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Abraham, Werner. (1991). Null subjects: From Gothic, Old High German and Middle High
German to Modern German: From pro-drop to semi-pro-drop. Groninger Arbeiten zur ger-
manistischen Linguistik 10: 81–107.
Abraham, Werner. (1992). The emergence of the periphrastic passive in Gothic. Leuvense
Bijdragen 81: 1–15.
Abraham, Werner. (2011). Verbs of motion: Passivization between unaccusativity and unerga-
tivity. In Malchukov & Siewierska (2011: 91–125).
Abraham, Werner, & Leiss, Elisabeth (eds). (2012). Covert Patterns of Modality. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Acker, Geoffrey Bernard. (1994). The Codex Argenteus Upsaliensis: A codicological examination.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.
Acosta, Diego de. (2011). Gothic loanwords in Spanish and Portuguese: Evidence for sounds
and sound changes. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 4: 127–70.
Adamczyk, Elżbieta. (2011). Towards a diatopic approach to the Old English s- stem declension.
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 112/4: 387–416.
Adamczyk, Elżbieta. (2012). On the fate of the s- stems in West Germanic: Evidence from Old
English and Old High German. In Wąsik & Chruszczewski (2012: 7–25).
Adamczyk, Elżbieta. (2013). On morphological realignments in Old English root nouns. TPS
111: 274–300.
Adams, James Noel, Janse, Mark, & Swain, Simon (eds). (2002). Bilingualism in Ancient Society:
Language Contact and the Written Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adams, Douglas Q. (1985). The Indo-European word for ‘apple’ again. IF 90: 79–82.
Afros, Elena. (2006). Gothic relative and explicative clauses introduced by enclitic ei. Amsterdamer
Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 61: 5–15.
Afros, Elena. (2010). Gothic relative clauses introduced by izei and sei revisited. Amsterdamer
Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 66: 5–20.
Aland, Kurt (ed). (1972). Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate
und Lektionare: Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die grie-
chische Textgeschichte. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Alcamesi, Filippa. (2009). Il commento dell’ Ambrosiaster e la traduzione gotica delle Epistole
Paoline. Filologia Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 1–27.
Aldridge, Edith. (2008). Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass
2: 966–95.
Alekseev, Mixail P., Guxman, Mirra M., Meletinskij, Eleazar M., & Jarceva Viktorija N. (eds).
(1964). Problemy sravnitel’noj filologii: Sbornik statej k 70-letiju člena-korrespondenta AN
SSSR V. M. Žirmunskogo. Leningrad: Nauka.
Alexiadou, Artemis. (2014). Nominal derivation. In Lieber & Štekauer (2014: 235–56).
568 References
Allen, Cynthia, Koch, Harold, & Ross, Malcolm (eds). (2013). Studies in Language Change 10.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Alquen, Richard J. E. d’. (1974). Gothic AI and AU: A Possible Solution. The Hague: Mouton.
Alquen, Richard J. E. d’. (1976). Ein gotisch-griechisch-vulgärleteinisches Rätsel. Glotta 54/3,4:
308–17.
Alquen, Richard J. E. d’. (1988). Germanic Accent, Grammatical Change and the Laws of
Unaccented Syllables. New York: Peter Lang.
Ambrosini, Riccardo. (1955). Di una caratteristica strutturale dei composti nominali in gotico.
Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: Lettere, Storia e Filosofia, Serie II, 24/3–4: 260–72.
Ambrosini, Riccardo. (1958). Ulteriori osservazioni sui composti nominali in gotico. Annali
della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Lettere, Storia e Filosofia, Serie II, 27/3–4: 225–41.
Ambrosini, Riccardo. (1965). Perifrasi gotiche con l’infinito. Studi a saggi linguistici 5: 87–101.
Ambrosini, Riccardo. (1967). Di alcune caratteristiche semantiche e prosodiche nelle traduzi-
oni dei Vangeli in gotico ed in slavo antico. Studi e saggi linguistici 7: 76–105.
Ambrosini, Riccardo. (1969). A proposito della concretezza in analisi semantica. In Studi in
onore di V. Pisani 1.47–66.
Ammann, Hermann. (1948). ‘Gotisch jota ains’. In Studien zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte.
Festschrift zu Ehren von Josef Schatz [no editors listed], 7–14. Innsbruck, Innrain: Wagner.
Andersen, Henning, & Koerner, Konrad (eds). (1990). Historical Linguistics 1987: Papers from
the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (8. ICHL) (Lille, 31 August–4
September 1987). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Anderson, George K. (1936). The þis- compounds in Gothic. JEGP 35: 27–43.
Anderson, George K. (1938). Some notes on Gothic syntax. The Germanic Review 13: 130–8.
Anderson, John M. (2006). Modern Grammars of Case: A Retrospective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Andrason, Alexander. (2010). Resultative predicative adjunct constructions in the Gothic Bible.
Interlingüística 20: 1–12.
André, Jacques. (1971). Emprunts et suffixes nominaux en latin. Paris: Minard.
Anreiter, Peter R. (1987). Rückläufiges Wörterbuch des Bibelgotischen: Ein Entwurf. Innsbruck:
Universitätsverlag Wagner.
Antonsen, Elmer H. (1975). A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Antonsen, Elmer H. (2002). Runes and Germanic Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Antonsen, Elmer H., & Hock, Hans Henrich (eds). (1991). Stæfcræft: Studies in Germanic
Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Apelt, Otto. (1874). Über den Accusativus cum Infinitivo im Gothischen. Germania 19: 280–97.
Arold, Anne, Cherubim, Dieter, Neuendorff, Dagmar, & Nikula, Henrik (eds). (2006). Deutsch
am Rande Europas. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Askedal, John Ole. (2009). Some general evolutionary and typological characteristics of the
Germanic languages. In Askedal et al. (2009: 7–56).
Askedal, John Ole, & Nielsen, Hans Frede (eds). (2015). Early Germanic Languages in Contact.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Askedal, John Ole, Roberts, Ian, Matsushita, Tomonori, & Hasegawa, Hiroshi (eds). (2009).
Germanic Languages and Linguistic Universals. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Aston, Katharine C. (1958). A study of Gothic and Old Icelandic words for oral expression.
Ph.D. dissertation, Bryn Mawr College.
References 569
Auer, Anita, & Vaan, Michiel de (eds). (2016). Le Palimpseste gotique de Bologne: Études
philologiques et linguistiques/The Gothic Palimpsest from Bologna: Philological and Linguistic
Studies. (Cahiers de l’ILSL 50.) Lausanne: Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage
de l’Université de Lausanne (Suisse). http://www.academia.edu/29430328/The_Gothic_
Palimpsest_from_Bologna._Philological_and_Linguistic_Studies.
Ausenda, Giorgio, Barnish, Stephen, & Rodolfi, Alessandra (eds). (2016). The Vandals and the
Sueves. San Marino: Woodbridge.
Austefjord, Anders. (1973). Zur Diphthongfrage im Gotischen. PBB 95: 163–9.
Avelar, Juanito (2009). On the emergence of ter as an existential verb in Brazilian Portuguese.
In Crisma & Longobardi (2009: 158–75).
Avesani, Rino, Ferrari, Mirella, & Pozzi, Giovanni (eds). (1981). Miscellanea Augusto Campana.
2 vols. Padua: Antenore.
Aygen, Nigar Gülșat. (2002). Finiteness, case and clausal architecture. Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard University.
Babenko, Natalija Sergeevna, & Zeleneckij, Aleksandr L’vovič (eds). (2007). Lingua Gotica:
Novye issledovanija. [The Gothic language: New investigations]. Kaluga: Èjdos; Institute of
Linguistics, Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation.
Bahder, Karl von. (1880). Die Verbalabstracta in den germanischen Sprachen, Ihrer Bildung nach
dargestellt. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.
Bahnick, Karen R. (1973). The Determination of Stages in the Historical Development of the
Germanic Languages by Morphological Criteria: An Evaluation. The Hague: Mouton.
Baker, Mark C. (2015). Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Baldauf, Edmund. (1938). Die Syntax des Komparativs im Gotischen, Althochdeutschen und
Altsächsischen. Ph.D. dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
Baldi, Philip, & Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds). (2009–11). New Perspectives on Historical Latin
Syntax. 4 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Balg, Gerhard Hubert. (1883). Gothic Grammar: With Selections for Reading and a Glossary.
[Trans. of the 2nd edn of Wilhelm Braune’s grammar.] 2nd edn. New York: Westermann.
Balg, Gerhard Hubert. (1887–89). A Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language: With
Especial Reference to English and German. New York: Westermann; London: Truebner; Halle
an der Saale: Niemeyer.
Balg, Gerhard Hubert. (1891). The First Germanic Bible: Translated from the Greek by the Gothic
Bishop Wulfila in the Fourth Century: And the Other Remains of the Gothic Language.
New York: Westermann; London: Truebner; Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.
Balles, Irene (ed). (2008). Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzügen: Die
Wortbildungsmuster ausgewählter indogermanischer Einzelsprachen, Vol. 1: Latein, Altgriechisch.
Gen. ed. Rosmarie Lühr. Hamburg: Kovač.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1980). Gotisch walisa*: Ein etymologischer Versuch aus der Sicht der
Wortbildungslehre. PBB 102: 1–4.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1981a). Die Betonung der Nominalen *ga- Komposita im Urgermanischen.
PBB 103: 377–91.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1981b). Two notes on the present optative in Germanic. General
Linguistics 21: 79–84.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1983). Zur Herkunft der Dualendungen im gotischen Verbalsystems.
PBB 105: 169–76.
570 References
Barnish, Samuel J. B., & Marazzi, Federico (eds). (2007). The Ostrogoths from the Migration
Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
Barrack, Charles M. (1989). Keyser, Kiparsky, O’Neil and Postal versus Sievers. Lingua 77:
223–96.
Barrack, Charles M. (1997). The putative strengthening of glides in Gothic. In Rauch & Carr
(1997: 1–8).
Barrack, Charles M. (1998). Sievers’ Law in Germanic. New York: Peter Lang.
Barrack, Charles M. (2010). Sievers’ Law in Gothic: A response to Pierce. Journal of Germanic
Linguistics 22/3: 255–76.
Barrack, Charles M. (2011). Word division within Gothic consonant clusters. University of
Washington: https://germanics.washington.edu/research/projects/word-division-within
-gothic-consonant-clusters.
Basilico, David. (2008). The syntactic representation of perfectivity. Lingua 118: 1716–39.
Bauer, Brigitte L. M., & Pinault, Georges-Jean (eds). (2003). Language in Time and Space: A
Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Beade, Pedro. (1971). Gothic phonology: A generative approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University.
Beade, Pedro. (1972). Sievers’ Law in Gothic and other related matters. Lingua 30: 449–59.
Beade, Pedro. (1973). A new look at Gothic verb morphology. Leuvense Bijdragen 62/4:
313–37.
Bech, G. (1952). Ueber die gotischen indefiniten Pronomina as und sums. Acta Philologica
Scandinavica 21: 66–72.
Bechtel, Friedrich. (1885). Über die urgermanische Verschärfung von j und v. Nachrichten von
der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 6: 235–9.
Beck, Heinrich. (1975). Review of Scardigli (1973). IF 80: 274–80.
Beck, Heinrich. (1979). Gotisch armahairts, althochdeutsch armherz: Lehnübersetzung von
lateinisch misericors? Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 98 [Sonderheft]: 109:29).
Beck, Heinrich (ed). (1989). Germanische Rest- und Trümmersprachen [Vol. 3 of Ergänzungsbände
zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde]. Ed. Beck, Heinrich, Jahnkuhn, Herbert,
& Wenskus, Reinhard. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Beck, Richard C. (1973a). Problems in Gothic phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago.
Beck, Richard C. (1973b). Length and monophthongization in Gothic. IF 78: 113–40.
Beck, Richard C. (1975). Final long vowels in Gothic. Studia Linguistica 29: 16–23.
Beck, Richard C. (1976). Glides and vowels in Gothic. Die Sprache 22: 11–24.
Beck, Sigrid. (2011). Comparison constructions. In Heusinger et al. (2011: 1341–90).
Beekes, Robert S. P. (1994). ‘Right’, ‘left’, and ‘naked’ in Proto-Indo-European. Orbis 37: 87–96.
Beer, Antonín. (1904). Kleine Beiträge zur gotischen Syntax. Prague: Rivnáč.
Beer, Antonín. (1912). Gab es einen gotischen Nominativus Absolutus? PBB 37: 169–71.
Beer, Antonín. (1915–21). Tři studie o videch slovesného děje v gotštině [Three studies on aspects
of verbal action in Gothic]. Čast první: Dějiny otázky [First part: Questions of Aktionsart
(1915)]; Čast druhá: O platnosti předpon fair-, faur-, faura-, fra-, dis- a du- [Second part: On
the effect of the prefixes fair-, faur-, faura-, fra-, dis-, and du- (1918a); Čast třetí: Ga- v
slovesných složeninách [Third part: Ga- on verbal compounds (1921)]. Prague: Rivnáč.
572 References
Beer, Antonín. (1918b). Beiträge zur gotischen Grammatik, 1: gawisan. PBB 43: 446–69.
Behaghel, Otto. (1878). Review of Lücke (1876). Germania 23: 242–3.
Behaghel, Otto. (1882). Heinrichs von Veldeke Eneide: Mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen. Heilbronn:
Henninger.
Behaghel, Otto. (1908). Review of Delbrück (1907). Literaturblatt für germanische und romanische
Philologie 29/8–9: 265–9.
Behaghel, Otto. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. IF
25: 110–42.
Behaghel, Otto. (1917). Die Indefinitpronomina as und sums. PBB 42: 158–61.
Behaghel, Otto. (1918). Der gotische Adhortativus. PBB 43: 325–7.
Behaghel, Otto. (1923–32). Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. 4 vols. (Vol. 1 1923,
Vol. 2 1924, Vol. 3 1928, Vol. 4 1932). Heidelberg: Winter.
Behaghel, Otto. (1930). Zur Stellung des adnominalen Genetivs im Germanischen und Deutschen.
KZ 57: 43–63.
Benedetti, Marina. (1988). I composti radicali latini: Esame storico e comparativo. Pisa: Giardini.
Benfey, Theodor (ed). (1862, 1864). Orient und Occident, insbesondere in ihren gegenseitigen
Beziehung: Forschungen und Mittheilungen. 2 vols. Göttingen: Dieterich.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1949). The monophthongization of Gothic ái, áu. Lg. 25: 15–21.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1952). The earliest Germanic umlauts and the Gothic migrations.
Lg. 28/3: 339–42.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1959a). The phonemic status of Gothic w h q. Lg. 35/3: 427–32.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1959b). The function of present participial constructions in the
Skeireins. Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie Fernand Mossé in memoriam 32–6. Paris:
Didier.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1960). The Gothic Commentary on the Gospel of John: Skeireins
Aiwaggeljons þairh Iohannen: A Decipherment, Edition, and Translation. New York: The
Modern Language Association of America.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1967a). Merger and split in the pre-Gothic vowel system: Historic
Gothic ai/aj, au/aw, iu/iw. Linguistics 5: 5–11.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1967b). Some phonological effects of pre-Gothic juncture. Lg. 43/3:
661–5.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1970). The stress patterns of Gothic. PMLA 85: 463–72.
Bennett, William Holmes. (1972). Prosodic features in Proto-Germanic. In Van Coetsem &
Kufner (1972: 99–116).
Bennett, William Holmes. (1980). An Introduction to the Gothic Language. New York: The
Modern Language Association of America. (Repr. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999.)
Benveniste, Émile. (1935). Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Adrien-
Maisonneuve. (Repr. 1962.)
Benveniste, Émile. (1948). Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris: Adrien-
Maisonneuve.
Benveniste, Émile. (1951a). Don et échange dans le vocabulaire indo-européen. L’Année socio-
logique (3rd series) 2. Repr. in Benveniste (1966a: 315–26).
Benveniste, Émile. (1951b). La conjonction ei dans la syntaxe gotique. BSL 47: 52–6.
Benveniste, Émile. (1960a). ‘Être’ et ‘avoir’ dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. BSL 55. Repr. in
Benveniste (1966a: 187–207).
Benveniste, Émile. (1960b). Les noms abstraits en -ti du gotique. Die Sprache 6: 166–71.
References 573
Brogyanyi, Bela, & Krömmelbein, Thomas (eds). (1986). Germanic Dialects: Linguistic and
Philological Investigations. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Brogyanyi, Bela, with Krömmelbein, Thomas (eds). (2002). Germanisches Altertum und christ-
liches Mittelalter: Festschrift für Heinz Klingenberg zum 65. Geburtstag. Hamburg: Kovač.
Brosman, Paul W., Jr. (1971). Romance evidence and Gothic <ggw>. IF 76: 165–73.
Brosman, Paul W., Jr. (1997). The Gothic tu- abstracts. Folia Linguistica Historica 18: 25–37.
Brosman, Paul W., Jr. (2007). The cognates of the Gothic masculine i- stems. IF 112: 215–35.
Brosman, Paul W., Jr. (2009). The cognates of the Gothic feminine i- stems.
Brosman, Paul W., Jr. (2010). The cognates of the Gothic u- stems. JIES 38/3–4: 384–401.
Brown, Thomas. (2007). The role of Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy: The evidence from Ravenna.
In Barnish & Marazzi (2007: 417–41).
Broz, Vlatko. (2013). Aspectual properties of the verbal prefix a- in Old English with reference
to Gothic. In Diewald et al. (2013: 235–62).
Brugmann, Karl. (1901). Homerisch [‘have in mind’] und gotisch briggan: Zwei Fälle
von Wurzelangleichung. IF 12: 150–8.
Brugmann, Karl. (1913). Die gotische Partikel -uh, -h. IF 33: 173–80.
Brugmann, Karl. (1897–1916). Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre nebst
Lehre vom Gebrauch der Wortformen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 1. Einleitung und
Lautlehre (1897). Vol. 2. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. In three parts: 2/1:
Allgemeines: Zusammensetzung (Komposita) Nominalstämme (1906); 2/2: Nomina (1911);
2/3: (1916). See Brügmann & Delbrück (1897–1916).
Brugmann, Karl, & Delbrück, Berthold. (1892–3). Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der ind-
ogermanischen Sprachen. 1st edn. 3 vols. Strasbourg: Trübner. (Repr. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967.)
Brugmann, Karl, & Delbrück, Berthold. (1897–1916). Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik
der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2nd edn. 5 vols. Strasbourg: Trübner. (Repr. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1967.)
Brunner, Karl. (1965). Altenglische Grammatik. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Bruus, Mette, Lindberg, Carl-Erik, & Nielsen, Hans Frede (eds). (2008). Gotisk Workshop: Et
uformelt formidlingstræf. Odense: Center for Middelalderstudier Syddansk Universitet.
Bubeník, Vít, Hewson, John, & Rose, Sarah (eds). (2009). Grammatical Change in Indo-
European Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Buckalew, Ronald Eugene. (1964). A Generative Grammar of Gothic Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Illinois.
Bucsko, John Martin. (2011). Preverbs and Idiomatization in Gothic. New York: Peter Lang.
Budanova, Vera Pavlovna. (1999). Goty v èpoxu velikogo pereselenija narodov [Goths at the time
of the great migration of nations]. 2nd edn. St. Petersburg: Aletejja.
Burchardi, Gustav. (1900). Noch einmal gotisch nahtam. PBB 25: 591–2.
Burckhardt, Ferdinand. (1872). Der gothische Conjunctiv verglichen mit den entsprechenden
Modis des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Zschopau: Raschke.
Burkitt, Francis Crawford. (1899). The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus. Journal of
Theological Studies 1: 129–34.
Burkitt, Francis Crawford. (1926). Review of Friedrichsen (1926). Journal of Theological Studies
28: 90–7.
Burton, Philip. (1996a). Fragmentum Vindobonense 563: Another Gothic-Latin bilingual?
Journal of Theological Studies ns 47: 141–56.
Burton, Philip. (1996b). Using the Gothic Bible: Notes on Jared S. Klein ‘On the independence
of Gothic syntax’. JIES 24: 81–98.
576 References
Burton, Philip. (2000). The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of their Texts and Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Burton, Philip. (2002). Assessing Latin-Gothic interaction. In Adams et al. (2002: 393–418).
Butt, Miriam. (2006). Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butt, Miriam, & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds). (1998). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and
Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Butt, Miriam, & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds). (2006). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and
Compositional Factors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butt, Miriam, & King, Tracy Holloway (eds). (2010). Proceedings of the LFG2010 Conference.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Buzzoni, Marina. (2009). Ibai mag blinds blindana tiuhan? (Luke 6,39): Pragmatic functions
and syntactic strategies in the Gothic left sentence periphery. Filologia Germanica / Germanic
Philology 1: 29–62.
Byrd, Andrew Miles. (2010a). Reconstructing Indo-European syllabification. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California Los Angeles. (Published as Byrd (2015).)
Byrd, Andrew Miles. (2010b). Motivating Sievers’ Law. In Jamison et al. (2010: 45–67).
Byrd, Andrew Miles. (2015). The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden: Brill.
Caha, Pavel. (2009). The nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Tromsø.
Cahen, Maurice. (1925). Remarques sur le style des adjectifs gotiques en -kunds. Mélanges
linguistiques offerts à M. J. Vendryes par ses amis et ses élèves, 75–91. Paris: Champion.
Calabrese, Andrea, & Halle, Morris. (1998). Grimm’s and Verner’s Laws: A new perspective. In
Jasanoff et al. (1998: 47–62).
Carlson, Erik. (2012). The Gothic vocabulary of fear. JEGP 111/3: 285–303.
Campanile, Enrico. (1970a). Note sul verbo germanico: Le classificazione dei verbi forti in
gotico. Studi e saggi linguistici 10: 174–83.
Campanile, Enrico. (1970b). Problemi di etimologia gotica. Studi e saggi linguistici 10: 184–9.
Campanile, Enrico. (1970c). La traduzione gotica del Vangelo e una congettura del Lachmann
a M. 7, 25. Studi e saggi linguistici 10: 190–92.
Campanile, Enrico. (1975). Le fonti della Bibbia gotica (Mc 1–5). Studi e saggi linguistici
15: 118–30.
Carr, Charles T. (1939). Nominal Compounds in Germanic. London: Oxford University Press.
Carr, Gerald F., Harbert, Wayne, & Zhang, Lihua (eds). (1999). Interdigitations: Essays for
Irmengard Rauch. New York: Peter Lang.
Casaretto, Antje. (2000). Korpussprachen und Produktivität: Einige Überlegungen zu den
gotischen s- Stämmen. HS/HL 113: 210–38.
Casaretto, Antje. (2004). Nominale Wortbildung der gotischen Sprache: Die Derivation der
Substantive. Heidelberg: Winter.
Casaretto, Antje. (2006). Zum Schicksal ererbter Wortbildungsmuster im Gotischen. International
Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 3: 125–46.
Casaretto, Antje. (2010). Evidence for language contact in Gothic. NOWELE 58/59: 217–37.
Casaretto, Antje. (2011). Das gotische Lexikon im Sprachkontakt: Die adjektivischen
Lehnbildungen. In Boschung and Riehl (2011: 143–56).
Casaretto, Antje. (2014). Zur Sprachkontaktsituation im Gotischen: Die Verbalkomposita.
Linguarum Varietas: An International Journal 3: 43–54.
Catford, John C. (Ian). (2001). On Rs rhotacism and paleophony. Journal of the International
Phonetic Association 31: 171–85.
Cathey, James E. (1970). A reappraisal of ‘Holtzmann’s Law’. Studia Linguistica 24: 56–63.
References 577
Cebulla, Paul. (1910). Die Stellung des Verbums in den periphrastischen Verbalformen des Gotischen,
Alt- und Mittelhochdeutschen. Breslau: Marcus.
Cercignani, Fausto. (1979a). The reduplicating syllable and internal open juncture in Gothic.
KZ 93: 126–32. Repr. in Cercignani (1992: 63–9).
Cercignani, Fausto. (1979b). The development of the Gothic short/lax subsystem. KZ 93: 272–8.
Repr. in Cercignani (1992: 71–7).
Cercignani, Fausto. (1980). Alleged Gothic umlauts. IF 85: 207–13. Repr. in Cercignani (1992:
79–85).
Cercignani, Fausto. (1984). The enfants terribles of Gothic ‘breaking’: hiri, aiþþau, etc. JIES
12/3–4: 315–44. Repr. in Cercignani (1992: 87–116).
Cercignani, Fausto. (1986). The development of the Gothic vocalic system. In Brogyanyi &
Krömmelbein (1986: 121–51). Repr. in Cercignani (1992: 117–47).
Cercignani, Fausto. (1988). The elaboration of the Gothic alphabet and orthography. IF 93:
168–85. Repr. in Cercignani (1992: 149–66).
Cercignani, Fausto. (1992). Saggi linguistici e filologici: Germanico, gotico, inglese e tedesco.
Alessandria: Orso.
Čevelová, Denisse, & Blažek, Václav. (2009). Gothic loans in Romance languages. Linguistica
Brunensia 57: 143–67.
Chantraine, Pierre. (1956). Études sur le vocabulaire grec. Paris: Klincksieck.
Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
Christensen, Arne Søby. (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in
a Migration Myth. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo, & Salvi, Giampaolo (eds). (2001). Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays
Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cipriani, Palmira, Giovine, Paolo di, & Mancini, Marco (eds). (1994). Miscellanea di studi lin-
guistici in onore di Walter Belardi. Rome: Calamo.
Clackson, James, & Olsen, Birgit A. (eds). (2004). Indo-European Word Formation: Proceedings
of the Conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th–22nd 2000. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press.
Clark, Eve V. (1978). Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In Greenberg
et al. (1978: iv. 85–126).
Cleasby, Richard, Vigfusson, Gudbrand, & Craigie, Sir William A. (eds). (1957). An Icelandic-
English Dictionary. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon.
Cloutier, Robert A. (2013). *Haitan in Gothic and Old English. In Diewald et al. (2013: 17–40).
Cluver, August Dawid de Villiers. (1968). Die afleiding van deverbale selfstandige naamwoorde
in goties. Acta Germanica 3: 3–20.
Cluver, August Dawid de Villiers. (1969). Die zero-deverbalen Substantive im Gotischen. Acta
Germanica 4: 107–31.
Coetsem, Frans van. (1949). Le renforcement des semi-voyelles intervocaliques en germanique
(j / jj > jj > gotique ddj etc.). Leuvense Bijdragen 39/3–4: 41–78.
Coetsem, Frans Van. (1999). On borrowing in Gothic: Broadening the research methodology.
In Carr et al. (1999: 155–61).
Coetsem, Frans Van, & Kufner, Herbert L. (eds). (1972). Toward a Grammar of Proto-Germanic.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
578 References
Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella, & Sridhar, Shikaripur N. (1980). On the
acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56: 719–43.
Coleman, Robert. (1996). Exponents of futurity in Gothic. TPS 94: 1–29.
Collin, August Zacharias. (1876). Sur les conjonctions gothiques. Lund: Berling.
Collinge, N. E. (1985). The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Collitz, Hermann. (1925). Gothic siponeis, a loan word from Greek. AJP 46: 213–21.
Collitz, Hermann. (1930). Zwei hapax legomena der gotischen Bibel. Lg. 6/4: 60–83.
Coombs, Virginia M. (1976). A Semantic Syntax of Grammatical Negation in the Older Germanic
Dialects. Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Cooper, Adam I. (2015). Reconciling Indo-European Syllabification. Leiden: Brill.
Cooper, Adam I., Rau, Jeremy, & Weiss, Michael (eds). (2013). Multi nominis grammaticus:
Studies in Classical and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the
Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ann Arbor, MI, and New York: Beech Stave Press.
Corazza, Vittoria. (1969). Le parole latine in gotico. [See Dolcetti Corazza.]
Corbett, Greville G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Corbett, Greville G., & Noonan, Michael P. (eds). (2008). Case and Grammatical Relations:
Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Costello, John R. (1973). The placement of Crimean Gothic by means of abridged test lists in
glottochronology. JIES 1/4: 479–506.
Costello, John R. (1980). The absolute construction in Gothic. Word 31: 91–104.
Costello, John R. (1986). Syntactic change, typological reconstruction, and the translation
of written material: Evidence from Gothic and Greek. In Brogyanyi & Krömmelbein (1986:
153–81).
Coupé, Griet, & Kemenade, Ans van. (2009). Grammaticalization of modals in Dutch:
Uncontingent change. In Crisma & Longobardi (2009: 250–70).
Cowgill, Warren. (1985). Loss of morphophonemic alternation in moribund categories, as
exemplified in the Gothic verb. In Bauer & Pinault (2003: 145–9). Repr. in Klein (2006:
441–4).
Crellin, Robert. (2014). The Greek perfect through Gothic eyes: Evidence for the existence of a
unitary semantic for the Greek perfect in the New Testament. Journal of Greek Linguistics 14:
5–42.
Crisma, Paola, & Longobardi, Giuseppe (eds). (2009). Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croke, Brian. (1987). Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes. Classical Philology 82: 117–34.
Cubbin, G[eoffrey] P. (1977). Gothic and West Germanic χw. KZ 91/2: 304–6.
Cuendet, Georges. (1924). L’Impératif dans le texte grec et dans les versions gotique, arménienne
et vieux slave des évangiles. Paris: Librairie orientaliste/Geuthner.
Cuendet, Georges. (1929). L’Ordre des mots dans le texte grec et dans les versions gotique, armé-
nienne et vieux slave des évangiles, Vol. 1: Les Groupes nominaux. Paris: Champion.
Curme, George O. (1911). Is the Gothic Bible Gothic? JEGP 10: 151–90, 335–77.
Curta, Florin (ed). (2005a). Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages. Turnhout: Brepols.
Curta, Florin. (2005b). Frontier ethnogenesis in Late Antiquity: The Danube, the Tervingi, and
the Slavs. In Curta (2005a: 173–204).
Dahlmann, R. (1876). Some remarks on the Gothic particle -h, -uh. The Journal of Philology 6:
257–62.
References 579
Dal, Ingerid. (1949). Zur Flexion der adjektivischen i- Stämme im Gotischen. Norsk Tidsskrift
for Sprogvidenskap 15: 392–4.
Damsma, Levi, & Versloot, Arjen. (2015). Vowel epenthesis in early Germanic runic inscrip-
tions. Futhark 6: 21–64.
Daniels, Peter, & Bright, William (eds). (1996). The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Danielsen, Niels. (1968). Status und Polarität im Gotischen im Lichte des Kymrischen dargestellt.
Odense: Odense University Press.
Darms, Georges. (1978). Schwäher und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn: Die vrddhi-Ableitung im
Germanischen. Munich: Kitzinger.
Davis, Edward P. (1929). The injunctive in Gothic. Modern Philology 26/4: 427–32.
Davis, Garry W. (1999). Mini-sound changes and etymology: Go. bagms, maþl, and auhns. In
Carr et al. (1999: 147–54).
Davis, Garry W. (2000). Notes on the etymology of English big and Gothic ga-. American
Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 12: 41–52.
Davis, Garry W., & Iverson, Gregory K. (1996). The Verschärfung as feature spread. In Lippi-
Green & Salmons (1996: 103–20).
Davis, Graeme. (2002). Codex argenteus: Lingua gotorum aut lingua gotica? Journal of Language
and Linguistics 1/3: 308–13.
Dawson, Hope. (2002). Deviations from the Greek in the Gothic New Testament. In Southern
(2002: 9–18).
Delbrück, Berthold. (1870). Die Declination der Substantiva im Germanischen insonderheit
im Gotischen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 2: 381–407.
Delbrück, Berthold. (1897). Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanische Sprachen. Vol. 2, part 4
of Brugmann & Delbrück (1897–1916).
Delbrück, Berthold. (1904). Der germanische Optativ im Satzgefuge. PBB 29: 201–304.
Delbrück, Berthold. (1907). Synkretismus: Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Kasuslehre. Strasbourg:
Trübner.
Delbrück, Berthold. (1909). Das schwache Adjektivum und der Artikel im Germanischen. IF
26: 187–99.
Delbrück, Berthold. (1911). Germanische Syntax IV: Zur Stellung des Verbums. Leipzig:
Teubner.
Della Volpe, Angela. (2004). On Gothic gahlaiba and Latin companion: An excursus in his-
torical linguistics methodology. Lacus Forum 30: 5–28.
Del Pezzo, Raffaela. (1973a). Le citazioni bibliche nella Skeireins. Istituto universitario orientale
16: 7–15.
Del Pezzo, Raffaela. (1973b). I termini gotici per battesimo e purificazione. Istituto universitario
orientale 16: 25–32.
Del Pezzo, Raffaela. (1985). Osservazioni sulla terminologia agricola dei goti. Filologia germanica
28: 119–39.
Denton, Jeannette Marshall. (2003). Reconstructing the articulation of Early Germanic *r.
Diachronica 20: 11–43.
Derolez, René, & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. (1988). Gothic saihw and sai, with some
notes on imperative interjections in Germanic. In Jazayery & Winter (1988: 97–109).
Desportes, Yvon (ed). (1994). Philologische Forschungen: Festschrift für Philippe Marcq. Heidelberg:
Winter.
580 References
Devlamminck, Bernard, & Jucquois, Guy. (1977). Compléments aux dictionnaires étymologiques
du gotique. Vol. 1 (A-F). Louvain: Peeters.
de Vries, Jan. (1956). De gotische woordenschat vergeleken met die van het Noord- en
Westgermaans. Leuvense Bijdragen 46: 5–39.
Dewey, Tonya Kim. (2006). The origins and development of Germanic V2. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California Berkeley.
Dewey, Tonya Kim, & Syed, Yasmin. (2009). Case variation in Gothic absolute constructions.
In Barðdal & Chelliah (2009: 3–21).
Dickhoff, Emil. (1913). Der Unterschied im Gebrauch von gotisch uns und unsis. ZfdA 54/3–4:
466–74.
Diekhoff, Tobias J. C. (1912). The so-called prospective or anticipatory subjunctive in Gothic.
JEGP 11: 173–9.
Dieter, Ferdinand (ed). ([1898–]1900). Laut- und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte:
Zum Gebrauch für Studierende dargestellt von Richard Bethge, Otto Bremer, Ferdinand
Dieter, Friedrich Hartmann, & W. Schlüter. Leipzig: Reisland.
Dietz, Klaus. (1999a). Die gotischen Lehnwörter mit au im Altprovenzalischen und die
Rekonstruktion des gotischen Lautsystems. Sprachwissenschaft 24/2: 127–56.
Dietz, Klaus. (1999b). Die gallo- und iberoromanische Rezeption gotischer Lehnwörter mit ai
und die Rekonstruktion des gotischen Lautsystems. Sprachwissenschaft 24/4: 453–89.
Dieu, Éric. (2011). Le Supplétisme dans les formes de gradation en grec ancien et dans les langues
indo-européennes. Geneva: Droz.
Diewald, Gabriele, Kahlas-Tarka, Leena, & Wischer, Ilse (eds). (2013). Comparative Studies in
Early Germanic Languages: With a Focus on Verbal Categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dimitrakos, Dimitris [ ]. (1964). Méga Lexikón Óles tes Ellenikés Glósses
[Great Lexicon of the Entire Greek Language]. 15 vols. Athens: Hélène Kémiktsi. See https://
www.lexilogos.com/grec_ancien_dictionnaire.htm.
Dishington, James. (1976). Functions of the Germanic ē- verbs: A clue to their formal prehis-
tory. Lg. 52: 851–65.
Dishington, James. (1978). Arguments for an ai/ja- paradigm in the third weak class of Proto-
Germanic. IF 83: 301–23.
Dishington, James. (2010). The Caland system and the Germanic third weak class. HS / HL 123:
297–317.
[Dolcetti] Corazza, Vittoria. (1969). Le parole latine in gotico. Atti della Accademia Nazionale
dei Lincei, Memorie 14: 3–109.
Dolcetti Corazza, Vittoria. (1974). Forme romanze in Ulfila. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei 28: 817–27.
Dolcetti Corazza, Vittoria. (1982). Le prepositioni gotiche fram, us, af, þairh e la loro funzione
agentive. Aevum 56: 92–106.
Dolcetti Corazza, Vittoria. (1988). Il comparativo in gotico. Atti del XII e XIII Convegno Nazionale
dell’ Associazione Italiana di Filologia Germanica 95–120. Pescara.
Dolcetti Corazza, Vittoria. (1997). La Bibbia gotica e i bahuvrīhi. Alessandria: Orso.
Dolcetti Corazza, Vittoria, & Gendre, Renato (eds). (2008). Intorno alla Bibbia gotica.
Alessandria: Orso.
Dorfeld, Carl. (1885). Ueber die Function des Präfixes ge- (got. ga-) in der Composition mit Verben,
Teil 1: Das Präfix bei Ulfilas und Tatian. Gießen: Universitäts-Buch- und Steindruckerei.
Douse, Thomas Le Marchant. (1886). An Introduction, Phonological, Morphological, Syntactic,
to the Gothic of Ulfilas. London: Taylor & Francis.
References 581
Drinka, Bridget. (2011). The sacral stamp of Greek: Periphrastic constructions in the New
Testament translations of Latin, Gothic, and Old Church Slavonic. In Welo (2011: 41–73).
Du Cange, Charles du Fresne. (1883–87). Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis. 10 vols. 2nd
edn, rev. Léopold Favre. Paris: Librairie des Sciences et des Arts (1937–38).
Dunkel, George Eugene. (1978). Preverb deletion in Indo-European? KZ 92: 14–26.
Dunkel, George Eugene. (1979). Preverb repetition. MSS 38: 41–82.
Dunkel, George Eugene. (2009). Lithuanian chips from an aptologist’s workshop. Baltistica 44:
37–57.
Dunkel, George Eugene. (2014). Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme.
2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Durante, Elio. (1969). Le rispondenze del genitivo assoluto greco nella Bibbia gotica. Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche (serie VIII) 14/3: 145–207.
Durante, Elio. (1974). Du usfilhan ana gastim: La funzione di ‘ana’ e il costrutto ‘du’ con l’infinito
in gotico. Rome: Istituto di glottologia Università di Roma.
Dvuxžilov, Aleksandr Vladimirovič. (1980). Semantiko-sintaksičeskaja priroda protivopostav-
lenija ‘slabaja/sil’naja forma’ prilagatel’nogo v gotskom jazyke [Semantic-syntactic nature of
the opposition ‘strong/weak form’ of the adjective in the Gothic language]. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Kiev (Kievskij ordina Lenina gosudarstvennyj universitet imeni T. G. Ševčenko).
Dybo, Vladimir Antonovič. (1961). Sokraščenie dolgot v kel’to-italijskix jazykax i ego značenie
dlja baltoslavjanskoj i indoevropejskoj akcentologii [Shortening/reduction of length in the
Celto-Italic languages and its significance for Balto-Slavic and Indo-European accentuation.]
Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 5: 9–34.
Ebanista, Carlo, & Rotili, Marcello (eds). (2011). Archeologia e storia delle migrazioni. Europa,
Italia, Mediterraneo fra tarda età romana e alto medioevo. Cimitile: Tavolario Edizioni.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1959). Gotisch spaiskuldra. PBB 81: 116–17.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1960). Gotisch iu. JEGP 59/4: 597–9.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1961). Gotisch und das Prinzip der gotischen Kontraktionen.
JEGP 60/3: 477–90.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1963). The Gothic character X. In Hofacker & Dieckmann (1963:
3–5).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1970). Gothic L, R, M, N? The evidence reviewed. JEGP 69/4:
580–3.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1971). Gotica II. General Linguistics 11/2: 99–103. Repr. in
Ebbinghaus (2003: 5–9).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1974). The meaning of the first part of the compound substantive
*peika-bagms. General Linguistics 14: 35–7.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1975). Gotica XI. The Gothic calendar. General Linguistics 15:
36–9. Repr. in Ebbinghaus (2003: 38–42).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1976a). The first entry of the Gothic calendar. Journal of
Theological Studies 27: 140–5.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1976b). Gothic hleþrastakeins, ufarhleiþrjan, and hleiþra.
Sprachwissenschaft 1/3: 355–6.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1978). The second entry of the Gothic calendar. JEGP 77: 183–7.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1979a). The origin of Wulfila’s alphabet. General Linguistics 19:
15–29. Repr. in Ebbinghaus (2003: 81–96).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1979b). Wulfila’s translaton of . Sprachwissenschaft 4:
106–8.
582 References
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1981). Gotica XVIII. General Linguistics 21: 19–21. Repr. in
Ebbinghaus (2003: 65–8).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1982). Gothic *diakunus and *diakon. General Linguistics 22/3:
191–3. Repr. in Ebbinghaus (2003: 117–19).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1990). The question of Visigothic runic inscriptions re-examined.
General Linguistics 30/4: 207–14. Repr. in Ebbinghaus (2003: 180–8).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1991a). Ulfila(s) or Wulfila? HS/HL 104: 236–8.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1991b). The vowel of the Gothic reduplicating syllable. General
Linguistics 31/3–4: 177–9. Repr. in Ebbinghaus (2003: 189–91).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1992). Some remarks on the life of Bishop Wulfila. General
Linguistics 32/2–3: 95–104. Repr. in Ebbinghaus (2003: 192–203).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1996). The Gothic alphabet. In Daniels & Bright (1996: 290–6).
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1997 [1995]). Wulfila’s script: Facts and inferences. General
Linguistics 35: 81–96.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (1997). The Gothic documents: Their provenance and age.
NOWELE 31/32: 101–3.
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht. (2003). Gotica: Kleine Schriften zur gotischen Philologie. Ed.
Piergiuseppe Scardigli & Wolfgang Meid. Innsbruck: IBS. [Contains 37 articles.]
Ebbinghaus, Ernst Albrecht, & Wentzler, Marilyn L. (1977). The Gothic -type alphabet of cod.
Vindob. 795. General Linguistics 17/3: 155–9. Repr. in Ebbinghaus (2003: 76–80).
Ebel, Else. (1978). Zur Folge SOV in der Skeireins. Sprachwissenschaft 3: 49–82.
Ebenbauer, Alfred (ed.). (1984). Philologische Untersuchungen gewidmet Elfriede Stutz zum 65.
Geburtstag. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller.
Ebenbauer, Alfred, Knapp, Fritz Peter, & Krämer, Peter (eds). (1974). Strukturen und Interpreta-
tionen: Studien zur deutschen Philologie, gewidmet Blanka Horacek zum 60. Geburtstag.
Stuttgart: Wilhelm Braumüller.
Eckardt, Eugen. (1875). Über die Syntax des gotischen Relativpronomens. Halle an der Saale:
Karras.
Eckhoff, Hanne, Thomason, Olga, & de Swart, Peter. (2013). Mapping out the source domain:
Evidence from parallel Old Indo-European data. Studies in Language 37/2: 302–55.
Eda, Yoko. (1988). A study of Gothic absolute constructions. Gengo Kenkyu 93: 39–60.
Egan, Rory B. (1977). Gothic hroþeigs[*]. Orbis 26: 120–3.
Eggers, Eckhard, Becker, Joachim, Udolf, Jürgen, & Weber, Dieter (eds). (1999). Florilegium Linguis-
ticum: Festschrift für Wolfgang P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Ehrenfellner, Ullrike. (1998). Finale Konstruktionen im Gotischen. IF 103: 227–41.
Ehrismann, G[ustav] [Adolph]. (1899). Got. hiri. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 31: 384.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2000). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrman, Bart D., & Holmes, Michael W. (eds). (2013). The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research: Essays on the status quaestionis. 2nd edn. Leiden: Brill.
Eichman, Thomas Lee. (1971). Geminate resonants in Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Illinois.
Eichner, Heiner. (2005). Etymologische Notiz zu gotisch iddja und altenglisch ēode ‘ging’ aus
sprachgeschichtlicher Sicht. In Schweiger (2005: 71–2).
Eichner, Heiner. (2006). Zu den Quellen und Übertragungswegen der germanischen
Runenschrift: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag. In Bammesberger and Waxenberger (2006: 101–8).
References 583
Elis, Carl. (1903). Über die Fremdworte und fremden Eigennamen in der gotischen Bibel-
Übersetzung in grammatischer und archäeologischer Hinsicht. Einbeck: Schroedter.
Elkin, Celia Z. (1954). Eine semantische Untersuchung des Gotischen und andrer Germanischer
Dialekte im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Ph.D. dissertation, Bryn Mawr College.
Elsakkers, Marianne. (2005). Gothic Bible, Vetus Latina and Visigothic law: Evidence for a
Septuagint-based Gothic version of Exodus. Sacris Erudiri 44: 37–76.
Erdmann, Oskar. (1874). Review of Köhler (1872). Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 5:
212–16.
Erdmann, Peter H. (1972). Suffixal j in Germanic. Lg. 48/2: 407–15.
Ernout, Alfred, & Meillet, Antoine (1951). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. 3rd
edn. 2 vols. (Continuous pagination.) Paris: Klincksieck.
Esau, Helmut. (1973). The Germanic consonant shift: Substratum as an explanation for the first
sound shift. Orbis 22/2: 454–73.
Etter, Annemarie (ed). (1986). o-o-pe-ro-si Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Euler, Wolfram, with Badenheuer, Konrad. (2009). Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen. Abriss
der Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung. Hamburg: Inspiration Un Ltd.
Everaert, Martin. (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Utrecht.
Everaert, Martin. (2008). Domain restrictions on reciprocal interpretation. In König & Gast
(2008: 557–76).
Eythórsson, Thórhallur/Eyþórsson, Þórhallur. (1995). Verbal syntax in the early Germanic lan-
guages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. (1996). Functional categories, cliticization, and verb movement in the
early Germanic languages. In Thráinsson et al. (1996: 109–39).
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, & Barðdal, Jóhanna. (2005). Oblique subjects: A common Germanic
inheritance. Language 81/4: 824–81.
Faarlund, Jan Terje (ed). (2001a). Grammatical Relations in Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Faarlund, Jan Terje. (2001b). The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of
Icelandic. In Faarlund (2001a: 99–135).
Faarlund, Jan Terje. (2004a). The Syntax of Old Norse: With a Survey of the Inflectional
Morphology and a Complete Bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faarlund, Jan Terje. (2004b). Ancient Nordic. In Woodard (2004: 907–21).
Falluomini, Carla. (1999). Der sogenannte Codex Carolinus von Wolfenbüttel (Codex
Guelferbytanus 64 Weissenburgensis): Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der gotisch-
lateinischen Blätter (255, 256, 277, 280). Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studieny. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Falluomini, Carla. (2004). Sagiþo und nicht sauþo. Zu 1 Kor. 15,2 in der gotischen Bibel. ZfdA
133: 75–9.
Falluomini, Carla. (2005). Textkritische Anmerkungen zur gotischen Bibel. AnnalSS 5:
311–20 (2009). http://www.uniss.it/lingue/annali_file/vol_5/0031%20-%20Falluomini%20
Carla.pdf.
Falluomini, Carla. (2006). Kodikologische Bemerkungen über die Handschriften der Goten.
Scriptorium 60: 3–37.
Falluomini, Carla. (2009). Per una futura nuova edizione della bibbia gotica: Problemi e pros-
pettive. Filologia Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 63–88.
584 References
Falluomini, Carla. (2010a). Zur Schrift der Gotica Vindobonensia. ZfdA 139: 26–35.
Falluomini, Carla. (2010b). Il codice gotico-latino di Gießen e la Chiesa vandalica. In Piras
(2010: 309–40).
Falluomini, Carla. (2013a). The Gothic version of the New Testament. In Ehrman & Holmes
(2013: 329–50).
Falluomini, Carla. (2013b). The Gothic Gospel of John and its text-critical character. In Kaliff
& Munkhammar (2013: 145–64).
Falluomini, Carla. (2014). Zum gotischen Fragment aus Bologna. ZfdA 143: 281–305.
Falluomini, Carla. (2015). The Gothic Version of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles: Cultural
Background, Transmission and Character. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Falluomini, Carla. (2016a). Biblical quotations in the Gothic commentary on the gospel of John
(Skeireins). In Houghton (2016a: 13. 277–93).
Falluomini, Carla. (2016b). Textausgabe des gotischen Codex Bononiensis. In Auer & De Vaan
(2016: 11–20).
Falluomini, Carla. (2016c). Der Codex Bononiensis und die anderen gotischen Handschriften.
In Auer & De Vaan (2016: 21–8).
Falluomini, Carla. (2017). Zum gotischen Fragment aus Bologna II: Berichtigungen und neue
Lesungen. ZfdA 146/3: 284–93.
Falluomini, Carla. (2018a). The position of the verb in Gothic: The contribution of the Bologna
fragment. NOWELE 71/2: 161–75.
Falluomini, Carla. (2018b). The Gothic lexicon. In Ratkus (to appear).
Fazzini, Elisabetta, & Cianci, Eleonora (eds). (2007). I Germani e la scrittura. Alessandria: Orso.
Ferraresi, Gisella. (1991). Die Stellung des gotischen Verbs im Lichte eines Vergleichs mit dem
Althochdeutschen. M.A. thesis, University of Venice.
Ferraresi, Gisella. (1998). Die Syntax des Infinitivs im Gotischen: Die Modalverben skulan und
magan. In Strässler (1998: 46–9).
Ferraresi, Gisella. (2005). Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic. Leuven: Peeters.
Ferraresi, Gisella. (2018). Adverbs and sentence left-periphery: The temporal anaphora nu and
þan as discourse-structuring elements in Gothic. In Ratkus (to appear).
Ferraresi, Gisella, & Goldbach, Maria. (2004). Syntaktische und diskursive Beschränkungen
für Satzpartikeln in den älteren indoeuropäischen Sprachen. In Kozianka et al. (2004:
75–92).
Ferreiro, Alberto. (2008, 2011). The Visigoths in Gaul and Iberia (Update): A supplemental
bibliography, 2004–2006, 2007–2009. (The Medieval and Early Modern Iberian World 35,
45.) Leiden: Brill. Ferreiro has earlier bibliographies as well.
Ferreiro, Alberto. (2014). The Visigoths in Gaul and Iberia (Update): A supplemental bibliography,
2010–2012. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/9789004276598.
Fertig, David. (2000). Null subjects in Gothic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and
Literatures 12: 3–21.
Feuillet, Jack. (2014). Grammaire du gotique. Paris: Champion. [Reviewed by Schuhmann
2018a.]
Feulner, Anna Helene. (2000). Die griechischen Lehnwörter im Altenglischen. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Filip, Hana. (2011). Aspectual class and Aktionsart. In Heusinger et al. (2011: 1186–1217).
Finazzi, Rosa Bianca, & Tornaghi, Paola. (2013). Gothica Bononiensia: Analisi linguistica e
filologica di un nuovo documento. Aevum 87/1: 113–55.
References 585
Finazzi, Rosa Bianca, & Tornaghi, Paola. (2014). Gothica Bononiensia: A new document under
linguistic and philological analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and
Semiotic Analysis 19: 1–56.
Finazzi, Rosa Bianca, & Tornaghi, Paola. (2016). Gothica Bononiensia: de la découverte à nos
jours. In Auer & De Vaan (2016: 29–54).
Findell, Martin. (2009). Vocalism in the Continental runic inscriptions. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Nottingham [online at http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11233/1/MFindell_
thesis_vol1Final.pdf; published as Findell (2012a)].
Findlay, G. G. (1904). The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians: Edition with Map,
Introduction, and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisiak, Jacek (ed). (1985). Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton.
Flasdieck, Hermann M. (1936). Die reduplizierenden Verben des Germanischen (unter beson-
derer Berücksichtigung des Altenglischen). Anglia nf 48(=60): 241–365.
Fobbe, Eilika. (2006). Die Entstehung der schwachen Akjektivflexion des Deutschen.
Erklärungsansätze Leo Meyers und seiner Zeitgenossen. In Arold et al. (2006: 80–95).
Forssman, Bernhard. (1993). Zu altenglisch wyrcean ‘wirken’ und seinen Entsprechungen. In
Grinda & Wetzel (1993: 401–13).
Forssman, Bernhard, & Plath, Robert (eds). (2000). Indoarisch, Iranisch, und die Indogermanistik.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Förstemann, Ernst Wilhelm. (1900). Altdeutsches Namenbuch, Vol 1: Personennamen. 2nd edn.
Bonn: Hanstein.
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. 2nd
edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fourquet, Jean. (1938). L’Ordre des éléments de la phrase en germanique ancien. Paris: Belles
Lettres.
Fradin, Bernard. (2009). IE, Romance, French. In Lieber & Štekauer (2009: 417–35).
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, & Jasperson, Robert. (1991). That- clauses and other complements.
Lingua 83: 133–53.
Francini, Marusca. (2009). Key words of the Gospel of John: The Gothic version. Filologia
Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 89–112.
Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta. (2002). I Vandali: Lingua e storia. Rome: Carocci.
Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta. (2007). Interferenze latine nella scrittura del gotico. In Fazzini &
Cianci (2007: 1–12).
Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta. (2009). Le donne ostrogote in Italia e I loro nomi. Filologia
Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 113–40.
Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta. (2011). La romanizzazione dei Goti, 1: Risvolti linguistici. In
Ebanista & Rotili (2011: 199–218).
Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta. (2016). Tracing the language of the Vandals. In Ausenda et al.
(2016).
Freidin, Robert (ed). (1991). Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Freidin, Robert, & Sprouse, Rex A. (1991). Lexical case phenomena. In Freidin (1991: 392–416).
Freudenthal, Karl Fredrik. (1959). Gloria Temptatio Conversio: Studien zur ältesten deutschen
Kirchensprache. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Frey, Evelyn. (1989). Worttrennung und Silbenstruktur des Gotischen mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Skeireins. IF 94: 272–93.
586 References
Friedrichs, Ernst. (1891). Die Stellung des Pronomen personale im Gotischen. Jena: Pohle.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1926). The Gothic Version of the Gospels: A Study
of its Style and Textual History. London: Oxford University Press.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1927). Notes on the Gothic calendar (Cod. Ambros.
A). The Modern Language Review 22: 90–3.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1930). The silver ink of the Codex Argenteus. The
Journal of Theological Studies 31: 189–92.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1939). The Gothic Version of the Epistles: A Study
of its Style and Textual History. London: Oxford University Press.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1959). The Greek text underlying the Gothic ver-
sion of the New Testament: The Gospel of St. Luke. Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie
Fernand Mossé in memoriam 161–84. Paris: Didier. A critical discussion of selections made
by Streitberg for the Vorlage.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1961a). Gothic Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1961b). The Gothic ‘Skeireins’ in the Greek original.
New Testament Studies 8: 43–56.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1962). The Gothic ‘Skeireins’: A new approach to
interpretation. New Testament Studies 9: 53–5.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1963). The Gothic ‘Skeireins’, Leaf VI. New
Testament Studies 10/3: 368–73.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1964). The Gothic commentary on St John
‘Skeireins’, Leaf VIII. New Testament Studies 10/4: 499–504.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1970). The Gothic ‘Skeireins’ in the Greek
original, Leaves V and VII. New Testament Studies 16/3: 277–83.
Friedrichsen, George Washington Salisbury. (1977). Limitations of Gothic in representing
Greek. In Metzger (1977: 388–93).
Friesen, Otto von, & Grape, Anders. (1927). Codex argenteus Upsaliensis, Jussu senatus univer-
sitatis phototypice editus. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Fritz, Matthias. (2011). Der Dual im Indogermanischen: Genealogischer und typologischer
Vergleich einer grammatischen Kategorie im Wandel. Heidelberg: Winter.
Fritz, Matthias, & Gippert, Jost (eds). (2009). International Conference on Morphology and
Digitisation. Prague: Charles University Press.
Fritz, Matthias, & Wischer, Ilse (eds). (2004). Historisch-Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft
und germanische Sprachen: Akten der 4. Neulandtagung der Historisch-Vergleichenden
Sprachwissenschaft in Potsdam 2001. Innsbruck: IBS.
Fruyt, Michèle, Mazoyer, Michel, & Pardee, Dennis (eds). (2011). Grammatical Case in the
Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago.
Fulk, R[obert] D[ennis]. (1989). West Germanic parasiting, Sievers’ Law, and the dating of Old
English verse. Studies in Philology 86: 117–38.
Fulk, R[obert] D[ennis]. (2018). A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fullerton, G. Lee. (1989). The Germanic weak nonpresent formations. PBB 111: 59–80.
Fullerton, G. Lee. (1991). Reduplication and the prosody of ancient Germanic. PBB 113: 1–21.
Fuß, Eric. (2003). On the historical core of V2 in Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26:
195–231.
References 587
Gabelentz, Hans Conon von der, & Löbe <Loebe>, Julius. (1846). Grammatik der gothischen
Sprache. Vol. 2 of their: Ulfilas: Veteris et novi testamenti versionis gothicae fragmenta quae
supersunt, ad fidem codd. castigata latinitate donata adnotatione critica instructa cum glos-
sario et grammatica linguae gothicae . . . voluminis II pars posterior grammaticam linguae
gothicae continens. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Gabelentz, Hans Conon von der, & Löbe <Loebe>, Julius. (1848). Ulfilae, Gothorum episcopi,
opera omnia, sive veteris et novi testamenti versionis Gothicae fragmenta quae supersunt . . .
grammatica et glossarium [All the works of Ulfilas, Bishop of the Goths, or Fragments that
Survive of the Gothic Version of the Old and New Testament . . . Grammar and Glossary.]
Vol. 1. Paris: Petit-Montrouge.
Gaebeler, Kurt. (1911). Die griechischen Bestandteile der gotischen Bibel. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Philologie 43: 1–118.
Găleșanu, Paul. (2002). Biblia gotică: Studiu lingvistic român-got, dicționar etimologic-polisemantic.
Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatura Națională. [non vidi]
Gallee, Johan Hendrik. (1882). Gutiska, Vol. 2: De adjectiva in het gotisch en hunne suffixen.
Utrecht: Breijer.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., & Ivanov, Vyacheslav V. (1984). Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoev-
ropejcy [. . .]. (Indo-European and Indo-Europeans). 2 vols. Tbilisi: State University Press.
(English transl. by Johanna Nichols. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.)
Ganina, Natalija Aleksandrovna. (2001). Gotskaja jazyčeskaja leksika [Gothic Heathen Vocabulary].
Moscow: University of Moscow Press.
Ganina, Natalija Aleksandrovna. (2007). ‘Alkuinova rukopis’: K ètimologičeskoj i istorikokul’turnoj
traktovke [‘Alcuin’s Manuscript’: Toward an Etymological and Historical-Cultural Treatment.]
Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 60–72.
Ganina, Natalija Aleksandrovna. (2011). Krymsko-gotskij jazyk. [Crimean Gothic Language].
St. Petersburg: Aletejja/Aletheia.
Garbe, Burckhard. (1972). Das Speyerer Codex-Argenteus-Blatt. IF 77: 117–19.
García García, Luisa. (2003). Valenzstruktur der gotischen Kausativa. Sprachwissenschaft 2/4:
373–94.
García García, Luisa. (2004). Valenzstruktur der gotischen Kausativa. IF 109: 319–36.
García García, Luisa. (2005). Germanische Kausativbildung: Die deverbalen jan-Verben im
Gotischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Garrett, Andrew. (2010). Diffusion and descent in linguistic speciation. Paper presented to the
Philological Society, Cambridge University.
Gąsiorowski, Piotr. (2017). Cherchez la femme: Two Germanic suffixes, one etymology. Folia
Linguistica Historica 38: 125–47.
Gast, Volker. (2006). The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages.
London: Routledge.
Gebhardt, Michael. (2004). Review of Binnig (1999). PBB 126/2: 208–32.
Gelderen, Elly van. (2011). The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gelderen, Elly van (ed). (2016). Cyclical Change Continued. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Genis, R[ene] M. (2015). ‘Empty’ prefixes in Slavic and Gothic: Aspect and terminativity. In
Kitajo, M. & Kitajo, M. (eds). Aspektual’naja semantičeskaja zona: Tipologia sistem i scenarii
diaxroničeskogo razvitia [The Aspectual Semantic Zone: Typology of Systems and Scripts of
Diachronic Progresses]. 42–8. Kyoto: Kyoto Sangyo University.
588 References
Gentry, Francis G. (ed). (1988). Semper idem et novus: Festschrift for Frank Banta. Göppingen:
Kümmerle.
Gering, Hugo Carolus Theodorus Ludovicus. (1873). Über den syntactischen Gebrauch der
Participia im Gotischen. Inaugural dissertation (Halle an der Saale), cited from the Waisenhaus
Digital form: Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum (MDZ), Bayerische StaatsBibliothek
(BSB). (Also appeared as Gering 1874).
Gering, Hugo Carolus Theodorus Ludovicus. (1874). Über den syntactischen Gebrauch der
Participia im Gotischen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 5: 294–324, 393–433.
Gersmann, Karl-Heinz, & Grimm, Oliver (eds). (2018). Raptor and Human: Falconry and Bird
Symbolism throughout the Millennia on a Global Scale. 4 vols. Wachholtz: Murmann.
Gippert, Jost. (2016). Zum werden-Passiv im Gotischen. In Neri et al. (2016: 135–45).
Glaser, Elvira, Seiler, Annina, & Waldispühl, Michelle (eds). (2011). LautSchriftSprache. Beiträge
zur vergleichenden historischen Graphematik. Zurich: Chronos.
Glaue, [Karl Leopold] Paul, & Helm, Karl. (1910). Das gotisch-lateinische Bibelfragment der
Großherzoglichen Universitätsbibliothek Gießen. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und Kunde der älteren Kirche 11: 1–38.
Goebel, Julius. (1900). The Germanic suffix -ar-ja. PMLA 15: 321–5.
Goering, Nelson. (2016). Early Old English foot structure. TPS 114/2: 171–97.
Goering, Nelson, & Jones, Howard. (Forthcoming). An Introduction to the Gothic Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goetting, Lauren. (2007). Greek textual influence on Gothic complex verbs with pleonastic
prepositions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19: 309–47.
Gorbachov, Yaroslav. (2007). Indo-European origins of the nasal inchoative class in Germanic,
Baltic, and Slavic. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Gorbachov, Yaroslav. (2014). The origin of the Baltic inchoative in -sta-: An overlooked Proto-
Baltic sound law. IF 119: 21–53.
Gordon, Arthur E. (1983). Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Götti, Ernst. (1974). Die gotischen Bewegungsverben: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des
gotischen Wortschatzes mit einem Ausblick auf Wulfilas Übersetzungstechnik. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Gould, Chester Nathan. (1916). The syntax of at and ana in Gothic, Old Saxon, and Old High
German. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Granberg, Antoaneta. (2010). Wulfila’s alphabet in the light of neighbouring scripts. NOWELE
58/59: 169–93.
Granberg, Antoaneta. (2013). Establishing new alphabets (300–900 AD) and the relation
between the structure of the alphabet and the shape of its letters. In Kaliff & Munkhammar
(2013: 165–77).
Green, Dennis H. (1998). Language and History in the Early Germanic World. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds). (1978). Universals of
Human Language. 4 vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Greiner, Paul Joseph. (1992). Tempted by original syntax: Luther, Wulfila, and the Greek New
Testament. In Rauch et al. (1992: 97–107).
Greiner, Paul Joseph. (1994). Suprasegmentals in Germanic: Evidence from Gothic and Old
High German. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
References 589
Grewolds, Heinrich. (1932). Die gotischen Komposita in ihrem Verhältnis zu denen der griech-
schen Vorlage. KZ 60: 1–53.
Grewolds, Heinrich. (1934). Die gotischen Komposita in ihrem Verhältnis zu denen der griech-
schen Vorlage. KZ 61/3–4: 145–79.
Grienberger, Theodor von. (1896). Die germanischen Runennamen. 1. Die gotischen
Buchstabennamen. PBB 21: 185–224.
Grienberger, Theodor von. (1900). Untersuchungen zur gotischen Wortkunde. Vienna: Carl
Gerolds Sohn.
Griepentrog, Wolfgang. (1988). Synopse der gotischen Evangelientexte. Munich: Kitzinger.
[A study of parallel passages.]
Griepentrog, Wolfgang. (1990). Zur Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der gotischen Evan-
gelientexte. Innsbruck: IBS.
Griepentrog, Wolfgang. (1995). Die Wurzelnomina des Germanischen und ihre Vorgeschichte.
Innsbruck: IBS.
Griffiths, Alan. (1999). The Fuþark (and Ogam): Order as a key to origin. Indogermanische
Forschungen 104: 164–210.
Grimm, Jacob Ludwig Carl. (1819–51). Deutsche Grammatik: Erster Theil (1819; 2nd edn 1851),
Zweiter Theil (1826), Dritter Theil (1851), Vierter Theil (1837). Göttingen: Dieterich.
Grinda, Klaus R., & Wetzel, Claus-Dieter (eds). (1993). Anglo-Saxonica: Beiträge zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen Literatur: Festschrift für Hans
Schabram zum 65. Geburtstag. Munich: Fink.
Groeper, Richard. (1915). Untersuchungen über gotische Synonyma: Teil A: Religioses Leben.
Ph.D. dissertation, Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Berlin.
Grønvik, Ottar Nicolai. (1983). Die dialektgeographische Stellung des Krimgotischen und die
krimgotische cantilena. Oslo: University of Oslo Press.
Grønvik, Ottar Nicolai. (1995). Zur Deutung der krimgotischen cantilena. PBB 117: 9–17.
Groscurth, Ferdinand. (1930). Geschichte der germanischen u- Deklination. Marburg: Münchow
University Press.
Gruber, Hans. (1930). Das adverbale uz-Präfix im Gotischen und Althochdeutschen: Ein
Beitrag zum Problem der Präfix-Komposition. Jena: Walter Biedermann/Frommannsche
Buchhandlung. [Reviewed by Kuhn (1934).]
Grünwald, Friedrich. (1910). Zur gotischen Synonymik: Die Verba dicendi. Prague: Haase.
Gryson, Roger. (1982). Le Recueil arien de Vérone (MS. LI de la Bibliothèque capitulaire et feuil-
lets inédits de la collection Giustiniani Recanati): Étude codicologique et paléographique.
Steenbrugis: Abbatia Sancti Petri (Instrumenta patristica, 13).
Gryson, Roger. (1990). La version gotique des évangiles: Essai de réévaluation. Revue
théologique de Louvain 21: 3–31.
Gschwantler, Otto, Rédei, Károly, & Reichert, Hermann (eds). (1984). Linguistica et philologica:
Gedenkschrift für Björn Collinder (1894–1983). Vienna: Braunmüller.
Guimier, Claude. (1985). On the origin of the suffix -ly. In Fisiak (1985: 155–70).
Gunkel, Dieter, & Hackstein, Olav (eds). (2018). Language and Meter. Leiden: Brill.
Gunkel, Dieter, Katz, Joshua T., Vine, Brent, & Weiss, Michael (eds). (2016). Sahasram Ati
Srajas: Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Stephanie W. Jamison. Ann
Arbor, MI, and New York: Beech Stave Press.
Gunnarsson, Jón. (1973). Reduplication in Gothic and related problems. Norsk Tidsskrift for
Sprogvidenskap 27: 41–5.
590 References
Güntert, Hermann. (1929). Gotisch hiri. In Donum natalicum Schrijnen: Verzameling van
opstellen door oud-leerlingen en bevriende vakgenooten opgedragen aan Mgr. Prof. Dr. Jos.
Schrijnen bij gelegenheid van zijn zestigsten verjaardag 3 Mei 1929, 488–91. Nijmegen-
Utrecht: Dekker & Van de Vegt.
Gürtler, Hans. (1923). Zum Gebrauch der konkurrierennden Abstraktbildungen im Gotischen.
Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 49: 82–9.
Gusmani, Roberto. (1967). I nomi gotici in -assus. Archivio glottologico italiano 52/2: 124–42.
Gussmann, Edmund (ed). (1985). Phono-Morphology: Studies in the Interaction of Phonology
and Morphology. Lublin: Catholic University of Lublin Press.
Gütenbrunner, Siegfried. (1950). Über den Ursprung des gotischen Alphabets. PBB 72: 500–8.
Guxman (Gukhman), Mirra Moiseevna. (1940). Proisxoždenie stroja gotskogo glagola [Origin
of the system of the Gothic verb]. Moscow: Nauka.
Guxman (Gukhman), Mirra Moiseevna. (1958). Gotskij jazyk [The Gothic Language]. Moscow:
Vysšaja škola. (Repr. 2008.) [Excellent summaries of Gothic syntax, pp. 119–33, 214–40.]
Guxman (Gukhman), Mirra Moiseevna. (1964). Razvitie zalogovyx protivopostavlenij v ger-
manskix jazykax [Development of voice oppositions in the Germanic languages]. Moscow:
Nauka.
Guxman (Gukhman), Mirra Moiseevna, Makaev, Ènver Axmedovič, & Jarceva, Viktorija
Nikolaevna (eds). (1977–78). Istoriko-tipologičeskaja morfologija germanskix jazykov
[Historical-typological morphology of the Germanic languages]. 3 vols. Moscow: Nauka.
Habermann, Mechthild, Müller, Peter O., & Naumann, Bernd (eds). (2000). Wortschatz und
Orthographie in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Festschrift für Horst Haider Munske zum 65.
Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hachmann, Rolf. (1970). Die Goten und Skandinavien. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hackstein, Olav. (2002). Uridg. *CH.CC > *C.CC. Historische Sprachforschung 115: 1–22.
Haegeman, Liliane (ed). (1997). Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Haessler, Luise. (1935). Old English bebeodan and forbeodan. Lg. 11/3: 211–15.
Hagberg, Ulf Erik (ed). (1972). Studia Gotica: Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen
Schweden und Südosteuropa. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Hajnal, Ivo. (1997). Definite nominale Determination im Indogermanischen. IF 102: 38–73.
Hakulinen, Lauri. (1968). Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys [The structure and development of
the Finnish language]. Helsinki: Otava.
Hála, Bohuslav, Romportl, Milan, & Janota, Přemysl (eds). (1970). Proceedings of the Sixth
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, held at Prague 7–13 September 1967. Prague:
Academia; Munich: Hueber; Philadelphia, PA: Chilton.
Hale, Mark R. (2007). Historical linguistics: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hall, Nancy Elizabeth. (2003). Gestures and segments: Vowel intrusion as overlap. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available from Proquest. Paper AAI3110499. http://
scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3110499.
Hall, Nancy Elizabeth. (2006). Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion. Phonology 23/3: 387–429.
Halsall, Guy. (2007). Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hamel, Anton Gerard van. (1931). Gotisch handboek. 2nd edn. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink & Zoon.
Hamp, Eric P. (1956). Gothic ai and au. Modern Language Notes 71/4: 265–9.
Hamp, Eric P. (1958). Gothic ai and au again. Lg. 34/3: 359–63.
Hamp, Eric P. (1973a). Crimean Gothic ‘fers’. JEGP 72: 60–1.
Hamp, Eric P. (1973b). Solutions and problems from Speyer. IF 78: 141–3.
References 591
Hamp, Eric P. (1990). The Germanic r-stem nominative singular. HS/HL 103: 102–3.
Hamp, Eric P. (2010). On the etymology of Crimean Gothic apel. NOWELE 58/59: 443–52.
Hansen, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard. (2015). Review of Kotin (2012). NOWELE 68: 121–8.
Hansen, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard. (2018). Nursery words and hypocorisms among
Germanic kinship terms. NOWELE 71/2: 176–83.
Hansen, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard, Whitehead, Benedicte Nielsen, Olander, Thomas, &
Olsen, Birgit Anette (eds). (2016). Etymology and the European Lexicon: Proceedings of the
14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 September 2012, Copenhagen.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Hanson, Kristin, & Inkelas, Sharon (eds). (2009). The Nature of the Word: Studies in Honor of
Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harbert, Wayne. (1978). Gothic syntax: A relational grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Harbert, Wayne. (1992). Gothic relative clauses and syntactic theory. In Rauch et al. (1992: 109–46).
Harbert, Wayne. (2007). The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harbert, Wayne. (2012). Contrastive linguistics and language change: Reanalysis in Germanic
relative clauses. Languages in Contrast 12: 27–46.
Harbert, Wayne. (2018). On Gothic translations of Greek relative pronouns. In Ratkus (to appear).
Harczyk, Ignaz. (1898). Gotes: Eine Anmerkung zur altdeutschen Wortstellung. PBB 23: 240–5.
Harðarson, Jón Axel. (2001). Das Präteritum der schwachen Verba auf-ýia im Altisländischen (und
verwandte Probleme der altnordischen und germanischen Sprachwissenschaft). Innsbruck: IBS 101.
Harðarson, Jón Axel. (2005). Hví var orðið guð upphaflega hvorugkynsorð? [Why was the
word for ‘god’ originally a neuter?’] Orð og tunga 7: 81–93.
Harðarson, Jón Axel. (2014a). Das Wort für ‘Eisen’ im Keltischen und Germanischen und die
indogermanischen -erno- Bildungen. In Oettinger & Steer (2014: 103–12).
Harðarson, Jón Axel. (2014b). Zur Entwicklung der neutralen s-Stämme im Germanischen. In
Melchert et al. (2014: 46–63).
Harðarson, Jon Axel. (2017). The morphology of Germanic. In Klein et al. (2017: ii. 913–54).
Harmatta, János. (1997). Fragments of Wulfila’s Gothic translation of the New Testament from
Hács-Béndekpuszta. Acta Antiqua 37: 1–24.
Hartmann, Jutta M., & Molnárfi, László (eds). (2006). Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax:
From Afrikaans to Zurich German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harris, Stephen, Moynihan, Michael, & Harbison, Sherrill (eds). (2012). Vox Germanica: Essays
in Germanic Language and Literature in Honor of James E. Cathey. Tempe, AZ: Arizona
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.
Haspelmath, Martin. (1997). From Space to Time. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Haspelmath, Martin. (1999). External possession in a European areal perspective. In Payne &
Barshi (1999: 137–63).
Haspelmath, Martin, & Michaelis, Susanne. (2008). Leipzig fourmille de typologues: Genitive
objects in comparison. In Corbett & Noonan (2008: 149–66).
Hatto, A[rthur]. T[homas]. (1944). The name of God in Gothic. The Modern Language Review
39/3: 247–51.
Hatto, A[rthur]. T[homas]. (1946). The name of God in Germanic. The Modern Language
Review 41: 67–8.
Haudry, Jean. (1971). Le suffixe indo-européen *-men-. BSL 66: 109–37.
Haudry, Jean. (1977). L’Emploi des cas en védique: Introduction à l’étude des cas en indo-euro-
péen. Lyons: Hermès.
592 References
Haudry, Jean. (1981). Les deux flexions de l’adjectif germanique. BSL 76: 191–200.
Haudry, Jean. (1994). Der Ursprung des gemeingermanischen Infinitivs und des westgerma-
nischen Gerundiums. In Desportes (1994: 1–17).
Haudry, Jean. (2011). Genèse et évolution du système casuel indo-européen: Questions et
hypothèses. In Fruyt et al. (2011: 123–41).
Haugen, Einar. (1976). The Scandinavian languages: An introduction to their history.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Häusler, Sabine. (2004). Zur Differenzierung unterschiedlicher Possessivkonzeptionen inner-
halb der Verbalphrase des Gotischen. In Kozianka et al. (2004: 125–44).
Havers, Wilhelm. (1911). Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen.
Strasbourg: Trübner.
Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
He, Qingshun, & Yang, Bingjun. (2015). Absolute Clauses in English from the Systemic Functional
Perspective. Berlin: Springer.
Heather, Peter. (1996). The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heather, Peter. (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heather, Peter, & Matthews, John. (1991). The Goths in the Fourth Century. (Translated Texts for
Historians, Vol. 11.) Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. (Repr. 2004.)
Hechtenberg-Collitz, Klara. (1906). Syllabification in Gothic. JEGP 6: 72–91.
Heffner, Roe-Merrill Secrist. (1929). Gothic hiri. JEGP 28: 343–59.
Heffner, Roe-Merrill Secrist. (1930). Gothic rs : r final. JEGP 29/3: 319–31.
Heffner, Roe-Merrill Secrist. (1935). A note on phonologic oppositions. Harvard Studies and
Notes in Philology and Literature 17: 99–104.
Heidermanns, Frank Michael. (1986). Zur primären Wortbildung im germanischen
Akjektivsystem. KZ 99/2: 278–307.
Heidermanns, Frank Michael. (1993). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen
Primäradjektive. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Heidermanns, Frank Michael. (1996). Der Ursprung der gotischen Adverbien auf -ba. HS/HL
109/2: 257–75.
Heidermanns, Frank Michael. (2002). Nominal composition in Sabellic and Proto-Italic. TPS
100: 185–202.
Heidermanns, Frank Michael. (2007a). Die Halbvocale in der gotischen Nominalflexion. In
Babenko & Zeleneckij (2007: 211–20).
Heidermanns, Frank Michael. (2007b). Zum Präteritum der starken Verben im Gotischen.
NOWELE Supplement 23: 57–67.
Heidermanns, Frank Michael. (2011). Bibliographie zur indogermanischen Wortforschung:
Wortbildung, Etymologie, Onomasiologie und Lehnwortschichten der alten und modernen ind-
ogermanischen Sprachen in systematischen Publikationen ab 1800. 3 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Heine, Brent. (1997). Possession, Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Heinrichs, Heinrich Matthias. (1954). Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den germanischen
Sprachen. Gießen: Schmitz.
Heintz, Günther, & Schmitter, Peter (eds). (1985). Collectanea philologica: Festschrift für Helmut
Gipper zum 65. Geburtstag. 2 vols. Baden-Baden: Koerner.
Heinzle, Joachim. (2016). Esra oder Nehemia? Noch einmal zur Heimkehrerliste im Cod.
Ambr. D der gotischen Bibel. ZfdA 145: 1–8.
References 593
Heizmann, Wilhelm, Böldl, Klaus, & Beck, Heinrich (eds). (2009). Analecta Septentrionalia:
Beiträge zur nordgermanischen Kultur- und Literaturgeschichte (Ergänzungsbände zum
Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 65). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Helm, Karl. (1958). Einiges über die Skeireins. PBB 80/2: 201–7.
Helten, W[illem] L. van. (1896). Grammatisches. PBB 21: 437–98.
Helten, W[illem] L. van. (1903). Zur gotischen Grammatik. IF 14: 60–89.
Heltoft, Lars. (2001). Reanalysing structure: The Danish definite article, Its predecessors and
development. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 33: 67–90.
Hempel, Heinrich. (1962). Gotisches Elementarbuch. 3rd edn. (Sammlung Göschen Band
79/79a.) Berlin: De Gruyter. Rev. edn. Binnig (1999).
Hench, George Allison. (1896). Gotisch guþ. PBB 21: 562–8.
Hench, George Allison. (1897). The voiced spirants in Gothic. The Journal of Germanic Philology
1: 45–58.
Hendery, Rachel. (2012). Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A Case Study in the Methods of
Diachronic Typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hens, Gregor. (1995). The definition of a grammatical category: Gothic absolute constructions.
In Rauch & Carr (1995: 145–60).
Henß, Walter. (1957). Gotisches jah und -uh zwischen Partizipium und Verbum finitum.
Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 48:
133–41.
Heny, Frank, & Richards, Barry (eds). (1983). Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related
Puzzles. 2 vols. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Herbers, Klaus, Kortüm, Hans Henning, & Servatius, Carlo (eds). (1991). Ex ipsis rerum docu-
mentis. Beiträge zur Mediävistik. Festschrift für Harald Zimmermann zum 65. Geburtstag.
Sigmaringen: Thorbecke.
Hermann, Eduard. (1923). Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den andern indogermanischen
Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hermann, Eduard. (1930). Ulfilas Alphabet. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 1930: 136–9.
Hermodsson, Lars. (1952). Reflexive und intransitive Verba im älteren Westgermanischen.
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Hettrich, Heinrich. (2007). Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda. Würzburg: Universität
Würzburg Institut für Altertumswissenschaft.
Hettrich, Heinrich. (2011). Zum Dativ im Vedischen und in anderen indogermanischen
Sprachen. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, NF 35: 83–101. Würzburg:
Schöningh.
Hettrich, Heinrich. (2014). Some remarks on the adverbal genitive in Rgvedic Sanskrit. In
Klein & Tucker (2014: 129–52).
Hettrich, Heinrich, Hock, Wolfgang, Mumm, Peter-Arnold, & Oettinger, Norbert (eds). (1995).
Verba et structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: IBS.
Heusinger, Kraus von, Maienborn, Claudia, & Portner, Paul (eds). (2011). Semantics: An
International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. 3 vols. (Consecutive pagination).
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hewson, John, & Bubenik, Vit. (2006). From Case to Adposition: The Development of
Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [Chapter 12
on Germanic is by John Hewson.]
Hill, Eugen. (2002). Ein germanisch-keltisches Suffix für Nominalabstrakta. MSS 62: 39–70.
594 References
Hill, Eugen. (2003). Untersuchungen zum inneren Sandhi des Indogermanischen. Bremen: Hempen.
Hill, Eugen. (2010). A case study in grammaticalized inflectional morphology: Origin and
development of the Germanic weak preterite. Diachronica 27/3: 411–58.
Hill, Eugen. (2012). Die Entwicklung von *u vor unsilbischem *i in den indogermanischen
Sprachen Nord- und Mitteleuropas: Die Stammsuppletion bei *u-Adjektiven und das
Präsens von ‘sein’. NOWELE 64/65: 5–36.
Hill, Eugen. (2017). The West Germanic monosyllabic lengthening and the Gothic breaking as
partially Proto-Germanic developments: The evidence of pronominal place adverbs ‘here’,
‘where’ and ‘there’. NOWELE 70/2: 135–70.
Hinderling, Robert. (1971). ‘Erfüllen’ und die Frage des gotischen Spracheinflusses im
Althochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache 27: 1–30.
Hintze, Almut, & Tichy, Eva (eds). (2000). Anusantatyai: Festschrift für Johanna Narten zum
70. Geburtstag. Dettelbach (MSS, Beiheft 19, nf): Röll.
Hirt, Hermann. (1896). Zur gotischen Lautlehre. PBB 21: 159–61.
Hirt, Hermann. (1931–4). Handbuch des Urgermanischen. 3 vols. (1:1931, 2:1932, 3:1934).
Heidelberg: Winter.
Hock, Hans Henrich. (1991). On the origin and development of relative clauses in early
Germanic, with special emphasis on Beowulf. In Antonsen & Hock (1991: 55–89).
Hock, Hans Henrich. (2008). Early Germanic agreement with mixed-gender antecedents:
With focus on the history of German. In Jones-Bley et al. (2008: 151–69).
Hock, Hans Henrich. (2009). Default, animacy, avoidance: Diachronic and synchronic agreement
variations with mixed-gender antecedents. In Bubeník et al. (2009: 29–42).
Hock, Hans Henrich. (2012). Issues in Sanskrit agreement. In Klein (2012: 49–58).
Hock, Hans Henrich. (2014). Some notes on Indo-European double direct-object construc-
tions. In Bammesberger et al. (2014: 151–64).
Hodler, Werner. (1954). Grundzüge einer germanischen Artikellehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Hoek, Michel Van der. (2007). The origin of Gothic hiri. NOWELE 52: 9–21.
Hofacker, Erich, & Dieckmann, Liselotte (eds). (1963). Studies in Germanic Languages and
Literatures in Memory of Fred O. Nolte: A Collection of Essays Written by his Colleagues and
his Former Students. St. Louis, MO: Washington University Press.
Hoffmann, Karl. (1955a). Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix. MSS 6: 35–40.
Hoffmann, Karl. (1955b). Vedisch ‘gamati’. MSS 7: 89–92.
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr., & Melchert, H. Craig. (2008). A Grammar of the Hittite Language, Part 1:
Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Höfler, Otto. (1957). Die zweite Lautverschiebung bei Ostgermanen und Westgermanen. PBB
79: 161–350.
Hogg, Richard M. (1992). A Grammar of Old English, Vol. 1: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hogg, Richard M. (gen. ed). (1992–9). The Cambridge History of the English Language.
5 vols. Vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066, ed. Richard M. Hogg (1992). Vol. 2: 1066–1476, ed.
Norman Blake (1992). Vol. 3: 1476–1776, ed. Roger Lass (1999). Vol. 4: 1776–1997, ed.
Suzanne Romaine (1999). Vol. 5: English in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development,
ed. Robert W. Burchfield (1994). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hogg, Richard M., & Fulk, Robert Dennis. (2011). A Grammar of Old English. Volume 2:
Morphology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Holthausen, F[erdinand]. (1934). Gotisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Mit Einschluss der
Eigennamen und der gotischen Lehnwörter im Romanischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
References 595
Holtzmann, Adolf. (1835). Review of Hans Ferdinand Maßmann, Skeireins . . . (Munich: Jaquet,
1834). Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur 28: 854–63.
Hopper, Paul. (1969). An Indo-European ‘syntagm’ in Germanic. Linguistics 7: 39–43.
Horn, Wilhelm (ed). (1924). Beiträge zur germanischen Sprachwissenschaft: Festschrift für Otto
Behaghel. Heidelberg: Winter.
Horrocks, Geoffrey, & Stavrou, Melita. (2010). Morphological aspect and the function
and distribution of cognate objects across languages. In Rappaport Hovav et al. (2010:
284–308).
Høst, Gerd. (1949). Varia. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 17: 410–13.
Høst, Gerd. (1954). Got. anakumbjan, andbahts. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16:
428–40.
Høst, Gerd. (1968). Elliptic use of a preposition in Gothic. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap
22: 133–5.
Høst, Gerd. (1971). Spuren der Goten im Osten. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 25: 45–90.
Høst, Gerd. (1985). Anmerkungen zum Krimgotischen. ZfdA 114: 41–5.
Hout, Michiel van den. (1952). Gothic palimpsests of Bobbio. Scriptorium 6: 91–3.
Houghton, Hugh A. G. (ed). (2016a). Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition. Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias.
Houghton, Hugh A. G. (2016b). The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts,
and Manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howard, Margaret Anne. (1969). A linguistic analysis of the Gothic lexicon in Spanish vocabu-
lary. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
Howell, Robert B. (1988). Proto-Germanic */x/ and Gothic breaking. In Gentry (1988:
27–58).
Howell, Robert B. (1991). Old English Breaking and its Germanic Analogues. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Howell, Robert B. (2018). What do we really know about Gothic breaking? On the problem of
consonantally conditioned vowel mutations in Germanic. In Ratkus (to appear).
Hruby, Arthur. (1911). Zur Synonymik des Substantivs in den gotischen Evangelien. Triest: 61.
Jahresbericht des k. k. Staats-(Real-)Gymnasiums.
Hug, Johann Leonhard. (1821). Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1. 2nd edn.
Stuttgart: Cotta.
Huld, Martin E. (1990). The ‘Gothic’ epigram in the Anthologia latina and the development of
PG *æˉ in East Germanic dialectology. Michigan Germanic Studies 16/2: 120–7.
Hüllhorst, Charlotte E[ugenia]. (1902). Anomalous genders in Gothic. M.A. thesis, University
of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Hunter, M. J. (1969). The Gothic Bible. In Lampe (1969: 338–62).
Huth, Walter. (1903). Die mit der gotischen Präposition af zusammenhängenden Adverbia und
Präpositionen. Halle an der Saale: Karras.
Ioanesjan, Evgenija Rafaèlevna (ed). (2005). Problemy i metody sovremennoj lingvistiki: Sbornik
naučnyx trudov: Vypusk 1. [Problems and methods of modern linguistics: Collection of
scholarly papers. Issue 1]. Moscow: Institut Jazykoznanija RAN.
Ionița, Ion. (1972). Probleme der Sîntana de Mureș–Černjachov-kultur auf dem Gebiete
Rumäniens. In Hagberg (1972: 95–104).
Irslinger, Britta. (2004). Abstract formations with *-tu- and *-ti- in Old Irish and Indo-
European’. In Clackson & Olsen (2004: 65–90).
596 References
Ivanov, Vyacheslav V. (1999). Indo-European syntactic rules and Gothic morphology. UCLA
Indo-European Studies 1: 103–20.
Iverson, Gregory K., & Salmons, Joseph C. (2003). Laryngeal enhancement in early Germanic.
Phonology 20: 43–74.
Jacobsohn, Hermann. (1913). Got. ōgs, lat. vel. KZ 45: 342–8.
Jacobsohn, Hermann. (1915). Zwei Probleme der gotischen Lautgeschichte I. KZ 47: 83–94.
Jacobsohn, Hermann. (1920). Zwei Probleme der gotischen Lautgeschichte II. KZ 49/3–4: 129–218.
Jakovenko, Ekaterina Borisovna (ed). (2017). Lingua Gotica: Novye issledovanija. [The Gothic
Language: New Investigations]. Vypusk 3. Moscow: BukiVedi; Institute of Linguistics,
Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation.
Jakovenko, Ekaterina Borisovna, & Zeleneckij, Aleksandr L’vovič (eds). (2011). Lingua Gotica:
Novye issledovanija. [The Gothic Language: New Investigations]. Vypusk 2. Moscow, Kaluga:
Èjdos; Institute of Linguistics, Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation.
Jamison, Stephanie W., Melchert, H. Craig, & Vine, Brent (eds). (2009). Proceedings of the 20th
Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.
Jamison, Stephanie W., Melchert, H. Craig, & Vine, Brent (eds). (2010). Proceedings of the 21st
Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.
Janko, Josef. (1908). Zum Lautwert des gotischen h. Prager Deutsche Studien 8: 59–70.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (1973). The Germanic third weak class. Lg. 49/4: 850–70.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (1978). Observations on the Germanic Verschärfung. MSS 37: 77–90.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2002). The nom. sg. of Germanic n- stems. In Wedel & Busch (2002: 31–46).
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2002/3). ‘Stative’ *-ē- revisited. Die Sprache 43/2: 127–70 (2004).
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2003). Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2004). Gothic. In Woodard (2004: 881–906).
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2007). From reduplication to ablaut: The class VII strong verbs of Northwest
Germanic. HS/HL 120: 241–84.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2018). The Germanic weak preterite: Facing up to talgidai. Manuscript,
Harvard University.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (Forthcoming). What happened to the perfect in Hittite? A contribution to the
theory of the h2e- conjugation. In 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen: Morphosyntaktische
Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Proceedings of Arbeitstagung of the
Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Marburg, 21. bis 23. September 2015.
Jasanoff, Jay H., Melchert, H. Craig, & Oliver, Lisi (eds). (1998). Mír Curad: Studies in Honor of
Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: IBS.
Jazayery, Mohammad Ali, Polomé, Edgar C., & Winter, Werner (eds). (1978). Linguistic and
Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. 3 vols. The Hague: Mouton.
Jazayery, Mohammad Ali, & Winter, Werner (eds). (1988). Languages and Cultures: Studies in
Honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jeffery, Lilian Hamilton, & Johnston, Alan W. (1990). The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. 2nd
edn. Oxford: Clarendon.
Jellinek, Max Hermann. (1892). Gotisch w. ZfdA 36: 266–78.
Jellinek, Max Hermann. (1923). Zur christlichen Terminologie im Gotischen. PBB 47:
434–47.
Jellinek, Max Hermann. (1926). Geschichte der gotischen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Johannisson, Ture. (1949). Got. andhruskan och andsitan. Ett misskänt synonympar. Studier i
nordisk filologi 39: 1–19.
References 597
other alphabets by Junius, the Old English by Marshall with notes on both versions. He also
did a translation.]
Kachru, Braj, Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina, & Saporta, Sol (eds).
(1973). Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Kahle, Bernhard. (1887). Zur Entwicklung der consonantischen Declination im Germanischen.
Berlin: Haude- & Spenersche Buchhandlung.
Kaliff, Anders. (2011). The origin of the Goths: Mysterious and misunderstood. In Munkhammar
(2011c: 33–40).
Kaliff, Anders, & Munkhammar, Lars (eds). (2013). Wulfila 311–2011: International Symposium
(Uppsala University June 15–18, 2011). Uppsala: Västra Aros.
Kameneva, Ol’ga Vladimirovna. (2017). Zakonomernosti upotreblenija gotskix sojuzov iba(i) i
ei ni pri peredače grečeskogo sojuza celi [Patterns of use of the Gothic conjunctions
iba(i) and ei ni in the rendering of the Greek conjunction of purpose hína m .] In Jakovenko
(2017: 156–66).
Kapteijn, J[ohannes] M[arie] N[eele]. (1911). Die Übersetzungstechnik der gotischen Bibel in
den Paulinischen Briefen. IF 29: 260–367.
Karg-Gasterstädt, Elisabeth, & Erben, Johannes (eds). (1956). Fragen und Forschungen im
Bereich und Umkreis der germanischen Philologie: Festgabe für Theodor Frings zum 70.
Geburtstag 23. Juli 1956. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Karpov, Vladimir Ilič. (2005a). Struktura, semantika i funkcii složnyx slov i slovosočetanij v got-
skom jazyke (sopostavitelnyj aspekt) [Structure, semantics, and functions of compound words
and phrases in the Gothic language (comparative perspective)]. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of
Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences (Institut jazykoznanija Rossijskaja akademija nauk).
Karpov, Vladimir Ilič. (2005b). K voprosu ob otnošenii složnyx slov i slovosočetanij v gotskom
jazyke [On the question of relations between compound words and phrases in the Gothic
language]. In Ioanesjan (2005: 199–214).
Kastovsky, Dieter. (2009). Diachronic perspectives. In Lieber & Štekauer (2009: 323–40).
Katz, Joshua Timothy. (1998). Topics in Indo-European personal pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard University.
Katz, R. Moses, Jr. (2016). The resultative in Gothic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1897). Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibel-übersetzung.
Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 29: 306–37.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1898). Der Arrianismus [sic] des Wulfila. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Philologie 30: 93–112.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1900). Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibel-übersetzung.
5. Der codex Brixianus. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 32: 305–35.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1903). Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibel-übersetzung.
6. Die Corintherbriefe. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 35: 433–63.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1911a). Zur Textgeschichte der gotischen Bibel. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Philologie 43: 118–32.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1911b). Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibel-übersetzung.
7. Der codex Carolinus. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 43: 401–28.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1912). Got. gawairþi. IF 31: 321–2.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1920). Der Stil der gotischen Bibel. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie
48: 7–80, 105–235, 349–88.
References 599
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1923). Der Stil der gotischen Bibel. VIII. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Philologie 49: 11–57.
Kazanskij, Nikolaj N. (ed). (2015). Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassičeskaja filologija XIX
[Indo-European linguistics and Classical philology 19.] St. Petersburg: Nauka.
Kenyon, Frederic G. (1937). The Text of the Greek Bible. London: Duckworth.
Kenstowicz, Michael. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Kenstowicz, Michael, & Pyle, Charles. (1973). On the phonological integrity of geminate clus-
ters. In Kenstowicz & Kisseberth (1973: 27–43).
Kenstowicz, Michael, & Kisseberth, Charles (eds). (1973). Issues in Phonological Theory. The
Hague: Mouton.
Keydana, Götz. (1997). Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Keydana, Götz. (2006). Die indogermanische Perfektreduplikation. Folia Linguistica Historica
27: 61–116.
Kieckers, Ernst. (1927). Sprachwissenschaftliche Miscellen V. 25. Got. bisunjanē als Präposition
mit dem Akk. ‘um-herum’. Acta et commentationes universitatis Tartuensis (Dorpatensis) B:
Humaniora 11: 16–18.
Kieckers, Ernst. (1960 [1928]). Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik. Munich:
Hueber.
Killie, Kristin. (2007). On the source(s) and grammaticalization of the Germanic -lik suffix.
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108/4: 659–82.
Kim, Ronald. (2008). An individual twist on the individualizing suffix: Definite n- stem nouns
in Pontic Greek. Glotta 84: 72–113.
Kim, Ronald. (2010). On the prehistory of Old English dyde. Medieval English Mirror 6:
9–22.
Kim, Yookang. (2000). Prosody and prosodically-motivated processes from Germanic to
Middle English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Kim, Yookang. (2001). Prosody and the i/j alternation in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics
13/2: 97–130.
Kind, John L. (1901). On the influence of the Greek in the coining of Gothic compounds. The
Graduate Bulletin C Ser. 6/3: 1–34. University of Nebraska.
Kiparsky, Paul. (1968). Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of Language 4:
30–57.
Kiparsky, Paul. (1996). The shift to head-initial VP in Germanic. In Thráinsson et al. (1996:
140–79).
Kiparsky, Paul. (1998). Partitive case and aspect. In Butt & Geuder (1998: 265–307).
Kiparsky, Paul. (2000). Analogy as optimization: ‘Exceptions’ to Sievers’ Law in Gothic. In
Lahiri (2000: 15–46).
Kiparsky, Paul. (2009). The Germanic weak preterite. In Steinkrüger & Krifka (2009: 107–24).
See also Kiparsky (Forthcoming).
Kiparsky, Paul. (2010). Compositional vs. paradigmatic approaches to accent and ablaut. In
Jamison et al. (2010: 137–81) plus http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/.
Kiparsky, Paul. (2011). Did Indo-European have reflexive pronouns? Paper presented at the
23rd Annual UCLA Indo-European conference, Los Angeles, 28–29 October.
Kiparsky, Paul. (2012). Greek anaphora in cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Greek
Linguistics 12: 84–117. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/
156658412x649977.
600 References
Kiparsky, Paul. (2018). Indo-European origins of the Greek hexameter. In Gunkel & Hackstein
(2018).
Kiparsky, Paul. (Forthcoming). Syncope, umlaut, and prosodic structure in early Germanic.
http://web.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/weakpreterite.2006b.pdf.
Kiparsky, Paul, & Kiparsky, Carol. (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch & Heidolph (1970: 143–73).
Kirchner, Carl Paul Victor. (1879). Die Abstammung des Ulfilas. Chemnitz: Pickenhahn.
Kjellman, Nils. (1947). Die Übersetzung der griechischen Verbalkomposita mit εἰς- in der
gotischen Bibel. Studia Linguistica 1/1–3: 45–51.
Klein, Jared Stephen. (1992a). On the independence of Gothic syntax, I: Interrogativity, com-
plex sentence types, tense, mood, and diathesis. JIES 20/3–4: 339–79.
Klein, Jared Stephen. (1992b). On the idiomatic nature of the Gothic New Testament: A
comparative study of prepositional usage in Gothic and New Testament Greek. TPS
90: 1–80.
Klein, Jared Stephen. (1994). Gothic þaruh, þanuh, and -(u)h þan. IF 99: 253–76.
Klein, Jared Stephen (ed). (2006). The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor, MI,
and New York: Beech Stave Press.
Klein, Jared Stephen. (2011). Negation and polarity in the Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian,
and Old Church Slavic Gospels: A preliminary study. In Welo (2011: 131–54).
Klein, Jared Stephen (ed). (2012). Indic across the Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-
Aryan. Bremen: Hempen.
Klein, Jared Stephen. (2018a). Discourse articulation in the Gothic Gospels, with notes on the
treatment of the same phenomenon in the Classical Armenian and Old Church Slavic
versions. In Ratkus (to appear).
Klein, Jared Stephen. (2018b). Semantics and discourse: On adversative conjunctions in Gothic
In Gunkel, Dieter, Jamison, Stephanie W., Mercado, Angelo O., & Yoshida, Kazuhiko (eds).
Vina Diem Celebrent: Studies in Linguistics and Philology in Honor of Brent Vine. 152–66.
Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press.
Klein, Jared Stephen, & Condon, Nancy Lynne. (1993). Gothic (u)h: A synchronic and com-
parative study. TPS 91: 1–62.
Klein, Jared Stephen, Joseph, Brian, & Fritz, Matthias (eds). (2017). Handbook of Comparative
and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Klein, Jared Stephen, & Tucker, Elizabeth (eds). (2014). Vedic and Sanskrit Historical Linguistics:
Papers of the 13th World Sanskrit Conference (3). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Klein, Jared Stephen, & Yoshida, Kazuhiko (eds). (2012). Indic across the Millennia: From the
Rig Veda to Modern Indo-Aryan. Bremen: Hempen.
Klein, Karl Kurt. (1952). Der Name Wulfilas. KZ 70/3–4: 154–76.
Klein, Thomas. (2013). Zum R-Plural im Westgermanischen. NOWELE 66: 169–96.
Kleiner, Yuri. (2018). Another hypothesis concerning the grammar and meaning of Inter eils
goticum. NOWELE 71/2: 236–48.
Kleyner, Svetlana D. (2015). The Gothic future: A tense that doesn’t exist. Indoevropejskoje
Jazykoznanije i klassičeskaja filologija 19: 383–400.
Kleyner, Svetlana D. (Forthcoming). Changed in translation: Greek actives become Gothic
passives. Manuscript, Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, St.
Petersburg.
Klimov, Vasilij Vasil’evič. (1983). Sravnitel’naja istorisčeskaja grammatika germanskix jazykov:
Refleksivnye konstrukcii v drevnix germanskix jazykax. [Comparative historical grammar of
References 601
Kortlandt, Frederik. (1991). The Germanic seventh class of strong verbs. NOWELE 18: 97–100.
Kortlandt, Frederik. (2001). The origin of the Goths. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik
55: 21–5. http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf.
Kortlandt, Frederik. (2017). Gothic phonology. (Entry 298 [2015] on his webpage http://
www.kortlandt.nl/bibliography.html).
Kostakis, Andrew. (2015). Height, frontness and the special status of /x/, /r/ and /l/ in Germanic
language history. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.
Kotin, Michail L. (1996). Das Weltbild und das Sprachbild in der gotischen Bibel-Übersetzung.
In Sroka (1996: 141–5).
Kotin, Michail L. (1997). Die analytischen Formen und Fügungen im deutschen Verbalsystem:
Herausbildung und Status (unter Berüchtigung des Gotischen). Sprachwissenschaft 22/4:
479–500.
Kotin, Michail L. (2012). Gotisch: Im (diachronischen und typologischen) Vergleich. Heidelberg:
Winter. [For discussion, see Pierce 2013a, Seebold 2013, Robinson 2014, Quak 2014, Hansen
2015, and Roland Schuhmann, http://indoeuropean-languages.blogspot.com/2012/05/
anmerkungen-zu-m-kotin-gotisch.html; on derivation there is little difference between
Kotin and Guxman 1958, as a brief comparision of Kotin, pp. 386–92 with Guxman,
pp. 100–205, reveals.]
Kotin, Michail L. (2018). Definiteness in Gothic: A case study in the genetics and typology of a
grammatical category. In Ratkus (to appear).
Kovari, Geoffrey. (1984). Studien zum germanischen Artikel: Entstehung und Verwendung des
Artikels im Gotischen. Vienna: Halosar. [With valuable statistics.]
Kozianka, Maria. (2004). Optimale Affixe. In Kozianka et al. (2004: 249–59).
Kozianka, Maria, Lühr, Rosmarie, & Zeilfelder, Susanne (eds). (2004). Indogermanistik—
Germanistik—Linguistik: Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Jena
18.–20.09.2002. Hamburg: Kovač.
Koziol, Herbert. (1972). Handbuch der englischen Wortbildungslehre. 2nd edn. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Krahe, Hans. (1961). Altgermanische Kleinigkeiten. IF 66: 35–43.
Krahe, Hans, & Meid, Wolfgang. (1967). Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, Vol. 3: Wortbildungslehre
(= Sammlung Göschen Band 1218b). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Krahe, Hans, & Seebold, Elmar. (1967). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Gotischen:
Zugleich eine Einführung in die germanische Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd edn. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Kraft, Karl-Friedrich, Lill, Eva-Maria, & Schwab, Ute (eds). (1992). Triuwe: Studien zur
Sprachgeschichte und Literaturwissenschaft: Gedächtnisbuch für Elfriede Stutz. Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Verlagsanstalt.
Kraus, Carl von. (1929). Gotica Veronensia. ZfdA 66/4: 209–13.
Krause, Maxi. (1987). Sémantique et syntaxe des préverbes en gotique. 4 vols. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Paris IV: Sorbonne. Available 1988 through Atélier national de reproduction
des thèses (Lille).
Krause, Maxi. (1994). Zeitangaben im Gotischen. In Desportes (1994: 18–42).
Krause, Maxi. (1995). Das System der spatialen Präpositionen im Gotischen. Sprachwissenschaft
20: 1–31.
Krause, Wolfgang. (1918). Ulfila, Matth. 9, 16. ZfdA 56: 98–9.
Krause, Wolfgang. (1963, 1968). Handbuch des Gotischen. 2nd and 3rd edns. Munich: Beck.
References 603
Landau, David. (2011). Pages 209 and 210 of the Ambrosian Gothic palimpsests: Ezra 2:9–42 or
Nehemiah 7:13–45? ZfdA 140: 421–41.
Landau, Idan. (2010). Saturated adjectives, reified properties. In Rappaport Hovav et al. (2010:
204–25).
Lane, George S. (1933). Some semantic borrowings in Wulfila. Philological Quarterly 12: 321–6.
Langner, Erdmann. (1903). Die gotischen Nehemia-Fragmente. Sprottau: Förster.
Lass, Roger, & Anderson, John M. (1975). Old English Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lechner, Franz von Paula. (1847). Sprachliche Bemerkungen zur gothischen Bibelübersetzung,
angeknüpft an einen Abschnitt aus dem Evangelium des hl. Lukas: Einladungsschrift zu den
Schlußfeierlichkeiten des Studienjahres 1846/47 am königl. Gymnasium zu Neuburg an der
Donau. Neuburg: Rindfleisch.
Lee, Anthony van der. (1962). Zur Aussprache der gotischen Digraphen ai und au. Festgabe
für L. L. Hammerich: aus Anlass seines siebzigsten Geburtstags, 125–52. Copenhagen: Natur-
metodens Sproginstitut.
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera, & Diewald, Gabriele. (2017). Passivization possibilities in double-
accusative constructions. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2, 9:1–4. https://
doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4050.
Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed). (1986). A Gothic Etymological Dictionary: Based on the Third Edition
of Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist. Leiden: Brill.
Leijström, Gunnar. (1950). Studier i det germanska adjektivets syntax, Vol 1: Partitiva akjektiv:
En satsanalytisk undersökning. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.
Leiss, Elisabeth. (1992). Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprach-
lichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Leiss, Elisabeth. (2000). Artikel und Aspekt: Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Leiss, Elisabeth. (2007). Covert patterns of definiteness/indefiniteness and aspectuality in Old
Icelandic, Gothic, and Old High German. In Stark et al. (73–102).
Leiss, Elisabeth. (2012). Aspectual patterns of covert coding of modality in Gothic and Old
High German. In Abraham & Leiss (2012: 175–200).
Leiss, Elisabeth. (2018). The function of aspect in embedded infinitives in Gothic. In Ratkus
(to appear).
Lejeune, Michel. (1974). Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: Winter.
Lendinara, Patrizia. (1992). Wulfila as the inventor of the Gothic alphabet: The tradition in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages. General Linguistics 32/4: 217–25.
Lendinara, Patrizia, Raschellà, Fabrizio D., & Dallapiazza, Michael (eds). (2011). Saggi in onore
di Piergiuseppe Scardigli. Berne: Peter Lang.
Lenk, Rudolf. (1910). Die Syntax der Skeireins. PBB 36: 237–306.
Lenski, Noel. (1995). The Gothic civil war and the date of the Gothic conversion. Greek, Roman
and Byzantine Studies 36: 51–87.
Leont’ev, Aleksej A. (1964). K probleme avtorstva ‘vul’filianskogo’ perevoda [On the problem of
the authorship of the ‘Wulfilian’ translation]. In Alekseev et al. (1964: 271–6).
Leont’ev, Aleksej A. (1965). K ètimologii nekotoryx gotskix glagolov. [On the etymology of
several Gothic words.] In Trubačev (1965: 255–8).
Leppänen, Ville. (2016). Gothic evidence for the pronunciation of Greek in the fourth century
AD: Transcription comparison method. Journal of Historical Linguistics 6: 93–113.
References 605
Longobardi, Giuseppe. (1978). Problemi di sintassi gotica: Aspetti teorici e descrittivi. MA the-
sis, University of Pisa.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. (1979). Le subordinate soggettive nella sintassi gotica. Studi e saggi
linguistici 19: 221–32.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. (1980). Nota sulla funzione coordinante del gotico ei. Studi e saggi
linguistici 20: 242–51.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. (1994). La positione del verbo gotico e la sintassi comparata dei com-
plementatori germanici: Alcune riflessioni preliminari. In Cipriani et al. (1994: 353–73).
Loporcaro, Michele. (2015). Vowel Length from Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Losch, Friedrich. (1887). Die mit dem Suffixe ni gebildeten Verbalabstracta im Gotischen.
Germania 32: 223–45.
Losquiño, Irene García. (2015). The Early Runic Inscriptions: Their Western Features. New York:
Peter Lang.
Lowe, Pardee, Jr. (1972). Germanic word formation. In Van Coetsem & Kufner (1972: 211–37).
Löwe, Heinz. (1991). Vermeintlich gotische Überlieferungsreste bei Cassiodor und Jordanes.
In Herbers et al. (1991: 18–29).
Lücke, Otto. (1876). Absolute Participia im Gotischen und ihr Verhältniss zum griechischen
Original, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Skeireins. Magdeburg: Mosche.
Luft, Wilhelm. (1898a). Die Umschreibungen der fremden Namen bei Wulfila. KZ 35: 291–313.
Luft, Wilhelm. (1898b). Got. hiri, hirjats, hirjiþ. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 30: 426–8.
Luft, Wilhelm. (1898c). Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Alphabeten. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.
Lugton, Robert C., & Saltzer, Milton G. (eds). (1970). Studies in Honor of J. Alexander Kerns.
The Hague: Mouton.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (1976). Germanische Resonantengemination durch Laryngal. MSS 35: 73–92.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (1982). Studien zur Sprache des Hildebrandliedes. Vol. 1. Herkunft und Sprache.
II. Kommentar. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (1985). Zur Deklination griech. und lat. Wörter in Wulfilas got. Bibelübersetzung.
MSS 46: 139–55.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (1988). Expressivität und Lautgesetz im Germanischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (2000a). Die Gedichte des Skalden Egill. Dettelbach: Röll.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (2000b). Morphosemantische Remotivierung bei Quantoren des Gotischen.
In Hintze & Tichy (2000: 161–79).
Lühr, Rosemarie. (2005). Der Einfluß der klassischen Sprachen auf die Germanische Grammatik.
In Meiser & Hackstein (2005: 341–62).
Lühr, Rosemarie. (2008). Loss and emergence of grammatical categories. Sprachwissenschaft
33/3: 317–49.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (2012). Zur Informationsstruktur im Gotischen. Jahrbuch für germanistische
Sprachgeschichte 3: 239–57.
Lühr, Rosemarie. (2017). The syntax of Germanic. In Klein et al. (2017: ii. 954–74).
Lühr, Rosemarie, & Zeilfelder, Susanne (eds). (Forthcoming). Struktur und Semantik der
Verbalphrase. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Jena 2006.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Lundquist, Jesse. (2015). On the accentuation of Vedic -ti- abstracts: Evidence for accentual
change. Indo-European Linguistics 3: 42–72.
Lundquist, Jesse, & Yates, Anthony D. (2017). The morphology of Proto-Indo-European. In
Klein et al. (2017: ii. 2079–95).
References 607
Luraghi, Silvia. (2003). On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic
Roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Luraghi, Silvia. (2009a). The origin of the feminine gender in Indo-European. In Bubeník et al.
(2009: 3–13).
Luraghi, Silvia. (2009b). Indo-European nominal classification: From abstract to feminine. In
Jamison et al. (2009: 115–31).
Luraghi, Silvia. (2011). The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological con-
siderations. Folia Linguistica 45/2: 435–64.
Luraghi, Silvia. (2014). Gender and word formation: The PIE gender system in cross-linguistic
perspective. In Neri & Schuhmann (2014: 199–231).
McCone, Kim. (1987). Hund, Wolf und Krieger bei den Indogermanen. In Meid (1987: 101–54).
McCreight Young, Katherine. (1988). Multiple case assignments. Ph.D. dissertation,
Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
McFadden, Thomas. (2009). On the pronominal origins of the Germanic strong adjective
inflection. MSS 63: 53–82.
McKnight, George H. (1897a). The primitive Teutonic order of words. Journal of Germanic
Philology 1: 136–219.
McKnight, George H. (1897b). The language of the Skeireins. Modern Language Notes 12/4:
205–9.
MacLeod, Mindy, & Mees, Bernard. (2006). Runic Amulets and Magic Objects. Woodbridge:
Boydell.
McLintock, David R. (1969). Über germanische Abstraktbildungen vom Typus gaskota-. PBB
91: 1–27.
McLintock, David R. (1972). ‘To forget’ in Germanic. TPS 71: 79–93.
McLynn, Neil. (2007). Little Wolf in the big city: Ulfila and his interpreters. Bulletin of the
Institute of Classical Studies (Special Issue, Suppl. 591) 50: 125–35.
Mahlow, Georg Heinrich. (1879). Die langen Vokale A E O in den europäischen Sprachen. Ein
Beitrag zur vergleichenden Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin: H. S. Hermann.
Maienborn, Claudia. (2011). Adverbs and adverbials. In Heusinger et al. (2011: 1390–1420).
Mailhammer, Robert. (2007). The Germanic Strong Verbs: Foundations and Development of a
New System. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Majer, Marek. (2017). Germanic ‘finger’, Balto-Slavic de-numeral adjectives in *-ero- and their
Indo-European background. TPS.
Majut, Rudolf. (1972). Über hippologische Bezeichnungen: Tiernamen und ein gotischer
Pflanzenname. Berlin: Schmidt.
Majut, Rudolf. (1974). Die gotischen Verzehrwörter. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 93/3:
420–42.
Makaev, Enver A. (1964). The morphological structure of Common Germanic. Linguistics 2:
22–50.
Makovskij, Mark Mixajlovič. (2011). K probleme vida v gotskom jazyke [On the problem of
aspect in the Gothic language]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 60/6: 90–104.
Malchukov, Andrej, & Siewierska, Anna (eds). (2011). Impersonal constructions: A Cross-
Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Maling, Joan. (1983). Transitive adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis. In Heny & Richards
(1983: i. 253–89).
Mallory, James P., & Adams, Douglas Q. (eds). (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture.
London: Fitzroy-Dearborn.
608 References
Marold, Karl [Ernst]. (1890). Stichometrie und Lesabschnitte in den gotischen Episteltexten.
Königsberg in Preußen: Hartung.
Marold, K[arl Ernst]. (1892). Die Schriftcitate der Skeireins und ihre Bedeutung für die
Textgeschichte der gotischen Bibel. In Festschrift zu der Sonnabend den 1. Oktober 1892
stattfindenden feierlichen Einweihung der neuen Gebäude des Königlichen Friedrichs-
Kollegiums zu Königsberg Pr. (no editors listed), pp. 67–74. Königsberg in Preußen: Hartung.
Marold, Edith, & Zimmermann, Christiane (eds). (1995). Nordwestgermanisch. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Martellotti, Anna. (1972). Osservazioni sul gotico wisan ‘essere’ e il presente wisa. Rendiconti
(morali) dell’Accademia dei Lincei (Series 8) 27/5–6: 207–48.
Martellotti, Anna. (1975). Sulla presunta espressione perifrastica del futuro in gotico. Annali
della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature Straniere del Università di Bari 6.
Maslov, Yurij Sergeevič. (1959). Kategorija predel’nosti/nepredel’nosti glagol’nogo dejstvija v
gotskom jazyke [Category of telicity/atelicity of verbal action in the Gothic language].
Voprosy jazykoznanija 5: 69–80. (Repr. with minor changes and updates in his Izbrannye
trudy: Aspektologija: Obščee jazykoznanie [Selected works: Aspectology: General linguistics].
Ed. A. V. Bondarko, T. A. Majsak, and V. A. Plungjan, 249–66. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj
kul’tury, 2004.)
Maßmann, Hans Ferdinand. (1834). Skeireins Aiwaggelions þairh Ïohannen: Auslegung des
Evangelii Johannis in Gothischer Sprache: Aus römischen und mayländischen Handschriften
nebst lateinischer Uebersetzung, belegenden Anmerkungen, geschichtlicher Untersuchung,
gothisch-lateinischem Wörterbuche und Schriftproben. Munich: Jaquet.
Maßmann, Hans Ferdinand. (1857). Ulfilas: Die heiligen Schriften alten und neues Bundes in
gotischer Sprache, mit gegenüberstehendem griechischem und lateinischem Texte, Anmerkungen,
Wörterbuch, Sprachlehre und geschichtlicher Einleitung. Stuttgart: Liesching.
Maßmann, Hans Ferdinand. (1868). Die Turiner Blätter des Ulfila. Germania 13: 271–84.
Masser, Achim. (1968). Gotisch haiþno, kreks, þiudos. PBB 90: 207–15.
Masuda, Yoshikazu. (1978). Die negative Partikel ni im Gotischen. Review of Liberal Arts
55: 1–18.
Masuda, Yoshikazu. (1979). Verhältnis des gotischen Artikels zum griechischen Artikel der
Vorlage. The Review of Liberal Arts 57: 83–99.
Matzel, Klaus. (1982/83). Zum gotischen Interrogativ- und Indefinitpronomen o. KZ 96:
119–26.
Matzel, Klaus. (1989). Zu drei krimgotischen Präteritalformen. HS/HL 102: 85–90.
Matzel, Klaus. (1992). Nachträge zu den germanischen Verbalakjektiven auf -i- / -ja- 2.Teil.
HS/HL 105: 93–143.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. (1986). Indogermanische Grammatik. Band i, ii. Halbband: Lautlehre
[Segmentale Phonologie der Indogermanischen]. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Meer, Marten Jan van der. (1901). Gotische Casus-Syntaxis. Leiden: Brill.
Meer, Marten Jan van der. (1914). Gotica. PBB 39: 201–13.
Meer, Marten Jan van der. (1916). Die gotischen Ortsgenitive. Neophilologus 1: 264–6.
Meer, Marten Jan van der. (1929). Fremdwörter im Gotischen. Neophilologus 14/4: 286–91.
Meer, Marten Jan van der. (1930). Die Bedeutung und die Rektion der Gotischen Praepositionen:
Gotische Casus-Syntax. Vol. 2. Amsterdam (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van
Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe Reeks, Deel XXVIII, No 4.):
Uitgave ven de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam.
610 References
Meerwein, Georg. (1977). Die formalen Kategorien zur Bezeichnung der begrifflichen Kategorie
Zukunft im Gotischen und in den nordgermanischen Sprachen. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Heidelberg. Meisenheim: [publisher not identified].
Mees, Bernard. (2000). The North Etruscan thesis of the origin of the runes. Arkiv för nordisk
filologi 115: 33–82.
Mees, Bernard. (2002). Runo-Gothica: The runes and the origin of Wulfila’s script. Die Sprache
43: 55–79 (2004).
Mees, Bernard. (2011). The yew rune, yogh, and yew. Leeds Studies in English ns 42: 53–74.
http://www.academia.edu/1816723/The_yew_rune_yogh_and_yew.
Mees, Bernard. (2013). ‘Giving’ and ‘making’ in early runic epigraphy. TPS 111: 326–53.
Meid, Wolfgang. (1964). Über s in Verbindung mit t- haltigen Suffixen, besonders im
Germanischen. IF 69: 218–55.
Meid, Wolfgang. (1965). Review of Munske (1964). IF 70: 228–31.
Meid, Wolfgang. (1982). ‘See’ und ‘Meer’. In Neu (1982: 91–6).
Meid, Wolfgang. (1986). Die Auseinandersetzung germanischer mit orientalisch–griechischer
Weltsicht am Beispiele der gotischen Bibelübersetzung. In Meid & Trenkwalder (1986:
164–70).
Meid, Wolfgang (ed). (1987). Studien zum indogermanischen Wortschatz. Innsbruck: IBS.
Meid, Wolfgang. (1993). ‘Berg’ im Gotischen. In Meiser et al. (1993: 273–9).
Meid, Wolfgang. (1994). Gotisch (ufar)himina-/airþa-kunda und airþeins. In Uecker (1994:
477–9).
Meid, Wolfgang. (1999a). Die Bezeichnungen für ‘fließendes Wasser’ im Gotischen. In Eggers
et al. (1999: 323–6).
Meid, Wolfgang. (1999b). wair und andere Bezeichnungen für Mann im Gotischen. In Polomé
& Justus (1999: i. 139–44).
Meid, Wolfgang, & Trenkwalder, Helga (eds). (1986). Im Bannkreis des Alten Orients. Studien
zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients und seines Ausstrahlungsraumes, Karl
Oberhuber zum 70. Geburtstag gedwidmet. Innsbruck: IBS.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. (2010). Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Meillet, Antoine. (1908–9). Notes sur quelques faits gotiques. Mémoires de la Société de linguis-
tique de Paris 15: 73–103.
Meillet, Antoine. (1909). Deux notes sur des formes à redoublement. In Philologie et linguis-
tique: Mélanges offerts à Louis Havet par ses anciens élèves et ses amis à l’occasion du 60e
anniversaire de sa naissance le 6 Janvier 1909, 261–78. Paris: Hachette.
Meillet, Antoine. (1918). Les noms du ‘feu’ et de l’‘eau’ et la question du genre. Mémoires de la
Société de linguistique de Paris 21/6: 249–56.
Meillet, Antoine. (1921). La catégorie du genre et les conceptions indo-européennes. In Meillet
(1965: 211–29).
Meillet, Antoine. (1949). Caractères généraux des langues germaniques. 7th edn. (1st edn, 1917).
Paris: Hachette. (Repr., Cambridge University Press, 2009.)
Meillet, Antoine. (1951–65). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. 2 vols. (1: 1965,
2: 1951). Paris: Champion.
Meillet, Antoine, & Vendryes, Joseph. (1948). Traité de grammaire comparée des langues clas-
siques. 2nd edn. Paris: Champion. (Repr. 1966.)
Meiser, Gerhard, with Bendahman, Jadwiga, Harðarson, Jón Axel, & Schaefer, Christiane (eds).
(1993). Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: IBS.
References 611
Meiser, Gerhard, & Hackstein, Olav (eds). (2005). Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der
XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23. September, Halle an der Saale.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Meissner, Torsten. (2006). S-Stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European:
A Diachronic Study in Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Melazzo, Lucio. (1992). Über sa qimands und sa qimanda im Gotischen. Sprachwissenschaft
17/2: 133–78.
Melazzo, Lucio. (2004). Gothic syntax and generative grammar. In Kozianka et al. (2004: 361–
82).
Melazzo, Lucio. (2015a). Present participles in the new Gothic palimpsest. Rivista italiana di
linguistica e di dialettologia 17: 33–41.
Melazzo, Lucio. (2015b). Some reflections on the Gothic optative. INVERBIS: Lingue Letterature
Culture 5: Linguistic Analysis and Ancient Indo-European Languages 115–27.
Melchert, H. Craig. (1983). A ‘new’ PIE *men suffix. Die Sprache 29: 1–26.
Melchert, H. Craig. (1987). PIE velars in Luvian. In Watkins (1987: 182–204).
Melchert, H. Craig, Rieken, Elisabeth, & Steer, Thomas (eds). (2014). Munus amicitiae: Norbert
Oettinger a collegis et amicis dicatum. Ann Arbor, MI, and New York: Beech Stave Press.
Melloni, Cinzia. (1979). I termini gotici per ‘uomo’. Filologica Germanica 22: 107–16.
Mel’nikova, Elena Aleksandrovna. (2001). Skandinavskie runičeskie nadpisi: Novye naxodki i
interpretacii: Teksty, perevod, kommentarij [Scandinavian runic inscriptions: New finds and
interpretations: Texts, translation, commentary.] Moscow: Vostočnaja Literatura RAN.
Menner, Robert J. (1937). Crimean Gothic ‘cadarion (cadariou)’, Latin centuriō, Greek kenturíōn.
JEGP 36/2: 168–75.
Mensel, Ernst H. (1904). Zum gotischen Alphabet. Modern Philology 1/3: 457–68, 1/4: 568.
Metlen, Michael. (1932). Does the Gothic bible represent idiomatic Gothic?—An investigation
based primarily on the use of the present participle in the Gothic Bible: With some
corroborating facts drawn from other materials. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
Metlen, Michael. (1933). What a Greek interlinear of the Gothic bible can teach us. JEGP 32/4:
530–48.
Metlen, Michael. (1938). Absolute constructions in the Gothic Bible. PMLA 53: 631–44.
Metzger, Axel. (2017). Das gotische Präverb ga- und seine Nachbarpräverbien. Hamburg: Kovač.
Metzger, Bruce M. (1977). The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Repr. 2001.)
Metzger, Bruce M., & Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, Karl H. (1937). Review of Mirowicz (1935). IF 55: 161–2.
Meyer, Leo Karl Heinrich. (1855). Gothische Doppelconsonanz. KZ 4: 401–13.
Meyer, Leo Karl Heinrich. (1862, 1864). Die Kehllaute der gothischen Sprache in ihrem
Verhältnisse zu denen des Altindischen, Griechischen und Lateinischen. In Benfey (1862:
514–30, 611–25; 1864: 75–90, 279–93).
Meyer, Leo Karl Heinrich. (1863). Über die Flexion der Adjectiva im Deutschen: Eine sprachwis-
senschaftliche Abhandlung. Berlin: Weidmann.
Meyer, Leo Karl Heinrich. (1869). Die gothische Sprache: Ihre Lautgestaltung, insbesondere im
Verhältniss zum Altindischen, Griechischen und Lateinischen. Berlin: Weidmann.
Meyer, Leo Karl Heinrich. (1878). Zur Lehre von der deutschen Adjectiv-Flexion. Zeitschrift für
deutsche Philologie 9: 1–16.
612 References
Meyer, Leo Karl Heinrich. (1880). AN im Griechischen, Lateinischen und Gothischen: Ein Beitrag
zur vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin: Weidmann.
Meyer, Leo Karl Heinrich. (1884). Über die Flexion des präsentischen Particips und des
Comparativs im Gotischen. Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und
der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen 13: 534–44.
Mezger, Fritz. (1930). Got. waninassus. KZ 58: 144.
Mezger, Fritz. (1946). Gothic managei. Lg. 22: 348–53.
Michelini, Guido. (1984). Gotisch, Baltisch und der indoeuropäische ‘Optativ’. Zeitschrift für
Slawistik 29/2: 168–76.
Mikhailova, Tatyana A. (2007). Macc, cailín and céile: An Altaic element in Celtic? In Tristram
(2007: 4–24).
Miller, D. Gary. (1969). Studies in some forms of the genitive singular in Indo-European.
Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Miller, D. Gary. (1973). On the motivation of phonological change. In Kachru et al. (1973: 686–718).
Miller, D. Gary. (1975). The Gothic complementizers þammei and ei. IF 80: 110–17.
Miller, D. Gary. (1977a). Some theoretical and typological implications of an Indo-European
root structure constraint. JIES 5: 31–40.
Miller, D. Gary. (1977b). Was Grassmann’s Law reordered in Greek? KZ 91: 131–58.
Miller, D. Gary. (1990). Homer and writing: Use and misuse of epigraphic and linguistic evi-
dence. The Classical Journal 85: 171–9.
Miller, D. Gary. (1993). Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Miller, D. Gary. (1994). Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Miller, D. Gary. (2000). Gerund and gerundive in Latin. Diachronica 17: 293–349.
Miller, D. Gary. (2001). Subject and object in Old English and Latin copular deontics. In Faarlund
(2001a: 223–39).
Miller, D. Gary. (2002). Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Miller, D. Gary. (2006). Latin Suffixal Derivatives in English and their Indo-European Ancestry.
(Repr. with corrections in 2012.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. Gary. (2010). Language Change and Linguistic Theory. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Miller, D. Gary. (2012). External Influences on English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. Gary. (2014a). Ancient Greek Dialects and Early Authors: Introduction to the Dialect
Mixture in Homer, with Notes on Lyric and Herodotus. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Miller, D. Gary. (2014b). English Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. Gary. (2017). Umlaut and syncope in Old Norse compounds. In Cooper, Brandon D.,
& Regetz, Timothy E. (eds). Essays on Piers Plowman and Philology: A Festschrift in Honor of
Rob Adams. Leiden (Medieval and Renaissance Authors and Texts): Brill.
Miller, D. Gary. (2018). Gothic -ei and -iþa: A prosodic difference. In Ratkus (to appear).
Miller, D. Gary, & Wanner, Dieter. (2011). Review of Crisma & Longobardi (2009). Diachronica
28: 119–31.
Mirarchi, Giovanni. (1982). Forme agentive in gotico. Filologia germanica 25: 205–46.
Mirowicz, Anatol. (1935). Die Aspektfrage im Gotischen. Vilnius: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk
w Wilnie. [Reviewed by Meyer (1937).]
Mittermüller, Klaus. (1983). Zur Struktur der verbalen Personalindikation im Gotischen.
Kirchzarten: Burg.
References 613
Mittner, Ladislao. (1939). Sein und Werden in der Gotenbibel: (I), (II). Wörter und Sachen 20/1:
66–85, 20/3: 193–215.
Moerkerken, Pieter Hendrik van. (1888). Over de verbinding der volzinnen in ’t Gotisch. Gent:
Leliaert & Siffer.
Moon, An-Nah. (2010). Reduplicating verbs in Gothic and Old English: An Optimality-theoretic
analysis. English Language and Linguistics 16: 225–48.
Morgaleva, Viktorija Viktorovna. (2008a). Absoljutnye pričastnye oboroty v gotskom i drevne-
anglijskom [Absolute participial constructions in Gothic and Old English]. Vestnik TGPU
2 (76): 73–7.
Morgaleva, Viktorija Viktorovna. (2008b). Absoljutnyj datelnyj pričastnyj oborot v gotskom
jazyke [The absolute dative participial construction in the Gothic language]. Vestnik Tomskogo
gosudarstvennogo universiteta 316: 21–4.
Morris, Richard L. (1985). Northwest-Germanic rūn- ‘rune’: A case of homonymy with Go.
runa ‘mystery’. PBB 107: 344–358.
Morris, Richard L. (1988). Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy. NOWELE Supplement 4. Odense:
Odense University Press.
Morris, Richard L. (1990). The Germanic futures and prototype theory. NOWELE 16: 73–90.
Mossé, Fernand. (1938). Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germa-
nique. 2 vols. Paris: Klincksieck.
Mossé, Fernand. (1950). Bibliographia gotica: A bibliography of writings on the Gothic lan-
guage to the end of 1949. Mediaeval Studies 12: 237–325.
Mossé, Fernand. (1953). Bibliographia gotica: A bibliography of writings on the Gothic lan-
guage: First supplement: corrections and additions to the middle of 1953. Mediaeval Studies
15: 169–83.
Mossé, Fernand. (1956). Manuel de la langue gotique: Grammaire, textes, notes, glossaire. 2nd
edn. Paris: Montaigne.
Mossé, Fernand, & Marchand, James W. (1957). Bibliographia gotica: A bibliography of writ-
ings on the Gothic language: Second supplement: corrections and additions to the middle of
1957. Mediaeval Studies 19: 174–96.
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz. (2001). Gotisch -(u)h und ein vergessenes Lautgesetz. NOWELE 38:
37–47.
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz. (2011). Der Nominalakzent im Frühurgermanischen: Konstanten und
Neuerungen. Hamburg: Kovač.
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz. (2013). Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte der germanischen starken
Verbs: Die Rolle des Aorists. Hamburg: Kovač.
Moulton, William G. (1948). The phonemes of Gothic. Lg. 24: 76–86.
Moulton, William G. (1954). The stops and spirants of early Germanic. Lg. 30: 1–42.
Mourek, Václav Emanuel. (1890). Syntaxis gotských předložek [Syntax of Gothic prepositions].
Prague: Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences.
Mourek, Václav Emanuel. (1892). Über den Einfluss des Hauptsatzes auf den Modus des
Nebensatzes im Gotischen. Sitzungsberichte der königl. böhmischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften: Classe für Philosophie, Geschichte und Philologie 14: 263–96. [See also the
very critical review by Bernhardt (1896).]
Mourek, Václav Emanuel. (1893). Syntaxis složených vět v gotštině. Prague: České Akademie
Císaře Františka Josefa. [In Czech with a German summary, Syntax der mehrfachen Sätze
im Gotischen, 287–334.]
614 References
Mourek, Václav Emanuel. (1895). Nochmals über den Einfluss des Hauptsatzes auf den Modus
des Nebensatzes im Gotischen. Sitzungsberichte der königl. böhmischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften. Classe für Philosophie, Geschichte und Philologie 17: 1–21.
Mourek, Václav Emanuel. (1903). Zur Negation im Altgermanischen. Prague: Verlag der königl.
böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
Mühlau, Johannes. (1904). Zur Frage nach der gotischen Psalmenübersetzung. Kiel: Mühlau.
Müller, Stefan. (2006). Sievers’ Gesetz im optimalitätstheoretischer, transformativer und nicht-
linearer Darstellung. PBB 128: 187–220.
Müller, Stefan. (2007). Zum Germanischen aus laryngaltheoretischer Sicht. Mit einer Einführung
in die Grundlagen der Laryngaltheorie. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Munch, Peter Andreas. (1848). Det gotiske sprogs: Formlære, med korte læsestykker og ordregis-
ter. Christiania [Oslo]: Feilberg & Landmark.
Munkhammar, Lars. (2011a). The Silver Bible: Origins and History of the Codex Argenteus.
Västerås: Västra Aros.
Munkhammar, Lars. (2011b). Wulfila. Uppsala: Selenas.
Munkhammar, Lars (ed). (2011c). Wulfila och den gotiska bibeln / Wulfila and the Gothic Bible.
Uppsala: Universitetsbibliotek.
Munkhammar, Lars. (2011d). Wulfila, the Goths and the Bible. In Munkhammar (2011c: 41–8.
Munkhammar, Lars. (2017). Codex Argenteus in print. In Jakovenko (2017: 34–45).
Munkhammar, Lars. (2018). Codex argenteus in the light of science and technology. NOWELE
71/2: 130–41.
Munske, Horst H. (1964). Das Suffix *-inga/-unga in den germanischen Sprachen: Seine
Erscheinungsweise, Funktion und Entwicklung dargestellt an den appellativen Ableitungen.
Marburg: Elwert. [Reviewed by Meid (1965).]
Musić, A. (1929). Die gotischen Partikeln ei und þei. PBB 53: 228–62.
Must, Gustav. (1955). The inscription on the spearhead of Kovel. Lg. 31/4: 493–8.
Naber, Friedrich. (1879). Gotische Praepositionen. Detmold: Meyer.
Napoleão de Souza, Ricardo F. (2017). A comparison of maximal syllable structure in four lin-
guistic areas. Presented at the 91st LSA Annual Meeting, Austin, TX.
Naumann, Hans. (1915). Kurze historische Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Strasbourg: Trübner.
Nedoma, Robert. (2010). Schrift und Sprache in den ostgermanischen Inschriften. NOWELE
58/59: 1–70.
Nedoma, Robert. (2018). Germanic personal names before AD 1000 and their elements refer-
ring to birds of prey: With an emphasis upon the runic inscription in the eastern Swedish
Vallentuna-Rickeby burial. In Gersmann & Grimm (2018: iv. 1583–1602).
Neidorf, Leonard. (2016). The pejoration of gædeling: From Old Germanic consanguinity to
Middle English vulgarity. Modern Philology 113/4: 441–59.
Neri, Sergio. (2003). I sostantivi in -u del gotico: Morfologia e preistoria. Innsbruck: IBS.
Neri, Sergio. (2005). Riflessioni sull’apofonia radicale di proto-germanico *namōn ‘nome’. HS/
HL 118: 201–50.
Neri, Sergio. (2009). Review of Ringe (2006). Kratylos 54: 1–13.
Neri, Sergio. (2011). Wetter: Etymologie und Lautgesetz. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Jena
[published as Neri 2017b].
Neri, Sergio. (2013). Zum urindogermanischen Wort für ‘Hand’. In Cooper et al. (2013: 185–205).
Neri, Sergio. (2016). Review of Kroonen (2013). I. Forschungsbericht: Germanische Etymologie.
Kratylos 61: 1–51.
References 615
Neri, Sergio. (2017a). Elementi di morfologia flessiva nominale indoeuropea. Perugia (Culture
Territori Linguaggi 12): Università degli Studi di Perugia.
Neri, Sergio. (2017b). Wetter: Etymologie und Lautgesetz. Perugia (Culture Territori Linguaggi
14): Università degli Studi di Perugia.
Neri, Sergio, & Schuhmann, Roland (eds). (2014). Studies on the collective and feminine in
Indo-European from a diachronic and typological perspective. Leiden: Brill.
Neri, Sergio, Schuhmann, Roland, & Zeilfelder, Susanne, with Hisatsugi, Satoko (eds). (2016).
“dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu”. Linguistische, germanistische und indogermanische Studien
Rosmarie Lühr gewidmet. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Nestle, Eberhard, Nestle, Erwin, Aland, Barbara, & Aland, Kurt (eds). (2012). Novum Testamentum
Graece. 28th edn. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Netunaeva, Irina Mixajlovna, & Čuxarev-Xudilajnen, Evgenij Mixajlovič. (2016). Optativ i
imperativ v funkcii zapreta na dejstvie v gotskom jazyke [Optative and imperative in the
function of prohibition of action in the Gothic language]. Vestnik volgogradskogo gosudarst-
vennogo universiteta 15/2: 129–37.
Netunaeva, Irina Mixajlovna, & Čuxarev-Xudilajnen, Evgenij Mixajlovič. (2017). Osobennosti
funkcionirovanija form optativa v složnopodčinennom predloženii v gotskom jazyke
[Functional properties of forms of the optative in the complex sentence in the Gothic lan-
guage]. In Jakovenko (2017: 142–55).
Neu, Erich (ed). (1982). Investigationes philologicae et comparativae: Gedenkschrift für Heinz
Kronasser. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (1989a). The Germanic Languages: Origins and Early Dialectal Interrelations.
Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (1989b). A note on Gothic 2 pt. sg. ind. saísōst. NOWELE 14: 74–5.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (1995). Methodological problems in Germanic dialect grouping. In
Marold & Zimmermann (1995: 115–23).
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (2002a). Nordic–West Germanic Relations. In Bandle et al. (2002:
558–68).
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (2002b). Delimitation of Ancient Nordic from Common Germanic and
Old Nordic. In Bandle et al. (2002: 615–19).
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (2010). Gothic and early runic: Two sound systems compared. NOWELE
58/59: 427–42.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (2011). Gothic runic inscriptions in Scandinavia? Futhark 2: 51–61.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. (2017). Præteritumsformerne af det gotiske verbum saian ‘så’. In Jakovenko
(2017: 132–6).
Nikolaev, Alexander. (2010). Issledovanija po praindoevropejskoj imennoj morfologii [Studies in
Proto-Indo-European nominal morphology]. St. Petersburg: Nauka.
Nikolaev, Alexander. (2011). Indo-European *dem(h2)- ‘to build’ and its derivatives. HS/HL
123: 56–96.
Nordenfalk, Carl. (1938). Die spätantiken Kanonentafeln. Gothenburg: Oscar Isaacson.
Normier, Rudolf. (1977). Idg. Konsonantismus, germ. ‘Lautverschiebung’, und Vernersches
Gesetz. KZ 91: 171–218.
Novickaja, Irina V. (2004). O vozmožnosti upotreblenija osnovoobrazujuščego suffiksa -ein- v
artikleobraznoj funkcii v gotskom jazyke [On the possibility of using the stem-forming
suffix -ein- in an article-like function in the Gothic language]. Vestnik TGPU, serija
Gumanitarnye nauki (filologija), vypusk 1/38: 50–54.
616 References
Novickaja, Irina V. (2010). Gotskoje abstraktnoje imja v sisteme sklonenija [The Gothic abstract
noun in the declensional system]. Tomsk: TML Press.
Nucciarelli, Franco Ivan. (1991). La structure originelle du texte gotique de Crimée. In Rousseau
(1991: 179–99).
Nussbaum, Alan J. (2014). Feminine, abstract, collective, neuter plural: Some remarks on each
(expanded handout). In Neri & Schuhmann (2014: 273–306).
Nuyts, Jan, & van der Auwera, Johan (eds). (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Mood and Modality.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Odefey, Paul [Gerhard]. (1908). Das gotische Lucas-Evangelium: Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkritik
und Textgeschichte. Flensburg: Meyer.
Oettinger, Norbert. (2003). Neuerungen in Lexikon und Wortbildung des Nordwest-
Indogermanischen. In Bammesberger & Vennemann (2003: 183–93).
Oettinger, Norbert, & Steer, Thomas (eds). (2014). Das Nomen im Indogermanischen: Morphologie,
Substantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Ohrloff, Otto. (1876). Die Bruchstücke vom alten Testament der gotischen Bibelübersetzung
kritisch untersucht. Halle an der Saale: Waisenhaus. (Also published as: Die alttestamentli-
chen Bruchstücke der gotischen Bibelübersetzung. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie
7: 251–95 (1876).)
Olsen, Birgit Anette. (2003). Another account of the Latin adjectives in-idus. Historische
Sprachforschung 116: 234–75.
Olsen, Birgit Anette. (2004). The complex of nasal stems in Indo-European. In Clackson &
Olsen (2004: 215–48).
Olsen, Birgit Anette. (2006). Some formal peculiarities of Germanic n- stem abstracts. In
Jones-Bley et al. (2006: 123–42).
Orr, Robert. (1982/83). The twofold adjective declension in Germanic and Slavic (with some
reference to Baltic): A contrastive/comparative analysis. KZ 96: 104–18.
Osthoff, Hermann. (1876). Zur Frage des Ursprungs der germanischen n- Declination. PBB
3: 1–89.
Ottósson, Kjartan G. (2013). The anticausative and related categories in the Old Germanic
languages. In Josephson & Söhrman (2013: 329–82).
Page, B. Richard. (1995). Nonlinear phonology and the development of post-consonantal
resonants in word-final position in West Scandinavian and Germanic. In Rauch & Carr
(1995: 231–42).
Page, B. Richard. (1998). Verner’s Law. PBB 120/2: 175–93.
Page, B. Richard, & Putnam, Michael T. (eds). (2018). The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic
Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pagliarulo, Giuseppe. (2006). On the alleged functions of word-order in Wulfilian Gothic. JIES
34/3–4: 437–50.
Pagliarulo, Giuseppe. (2008). Innovazione e conservazione nel passivo gotico. In Dolcetti
Corazza & Gendre (2008: 329–39).
Pagliarulo, Giuseppe. (2011a). Su alcuni casi di cattivo accordo in perifrasi passive gotiche.
Alessandria 4: 95–101.
Pagliarulo, Giuseppe. (2011b). Notes on the function of Gothic -u. JIES 39/3–4: 395–413.
Pagliarulo, Giuseppe. (2016). Tonic as and non-tonic as(-uh) in Gothic. JIES 44: 111–19.
Pakis, Valentine A. (2008). Homoian vestiges in the Gothic translation of Luke 3,23–38. ZfdA
137/3: 277–304.
References 617
Pakis, Valentine A. (2010). Praesens historicum and the question of Old Latin influence on the
Gothic bible. NOWELE 58/59: 239–54.
Pantcheva, Marina Blagoeva. (2011). Decomposing path: The nanosyntax of directional expres-
sions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Parker, David C. (1992). Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Paul, Hermann Otto Theodor. (1877). Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungs-Silben in den
aeltesten germanischen Dialecten. PBB 4: 315–475.
Paul, Hermann Otto Theodor. (1880). Gotisch ai und au vor Vocal. PBB 7: 152–60.
Paul, Hermann Otto Theodor. (1882). Noch einmal Gotisch ai und au vor Vocal. PBB
8: 210–22.
Paul, Hermann Otto Theodor. (1894). Gotisch ai vor r. IF 4: 334–5.
Paul, Hermann Otto Theodor (ed). (1900–9). Grundriss der germanischen Philologie. 4 vols.
2nd edn [1st edn: 1891–93]. Strasbourg: Trübner. Vol. 1 (1901). Vol. 2, Part 1 (1909); Vol. 2,
Part 2 (1905). Vol. 3 (1900).
Pausch, Karl Ferdinand. (1954). Die Rechtswörter in der gotischen Bibel und in der
Skeireins: Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Rechtssprache. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Heidelberg.
Payne, Doris, & Barshi, Imanuel (eds). (1999). External Possession. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Peeters, Christian. (1973). Gothic soh þan gilstrameleins frumista and the Germanic adjective
declension. IF 78: 144–45.
Peeters, Christian. (1974a). Zum passiven Infinitiv nach maht(s) ist im Gotischen. Studia
Linguistica 28: 112–14.
Peeters, Christian. (1974b). Gothic ‘aflet uns þatei skulans sijaima’. KZ 88: 127–8.
Peeters, Christian. (1974c). Was there a genitive of ‘direction’ in Gothic and Germanic? KZ
88/2: 287–8.
Peeters, Christian. (1976). Zur Kasussyntax des Gotischen. KZ 89/2: 281–2.
Peeters, Christian. (1978). Reflexive and non-reflexive possessives in Gothic (A particular use).
KZ 92: 233–4.
Peeters, Christian. (1980). Gotisches. KZ 94: 203–8.
Peeters, Christian. (1982). Zu einem angeblichen passiven Infinitiv im Gotischen. IF 87: 170–1.
Peeters, Christian. (1985a). Germanische Kleinigkeiten. IF 90: 207–8.
Peeters, Christian. (1985b). Was Bishop Wulfila a good translator? In Van Noppen & Debusscher
(1985: 75–7).
Peeters, Christian. (1997). On Gothic morphology. IF 102: 258–60.
Penney, John H. W. (ed). (2004). Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo
Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pennington, Joseph Allen. (2010). A study of purpose, result and causal hypotaxis in early
Indo-European gospel versions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Penzl, Herbert. (1950). Orthography and Phonemes in Wulfila’s Gothic. JEGP 49/2: 217–30.
Penzl, Herbert. (1977). Names and historical Germanic phonology: The bilingual sixth century
Ravenna deeds. Names 25: 8–14.
Penzl, Herbert. (1985). Zur gotischen Urheimat und Ausgliederung der germanischen Dialekte.
IF 90: 147–67.
Perkins, Chris. (2011). ‘Me’, ‘my’, ‘mine’: Maternal mental state talk, children’s social understand-
ing and the role of the self-concept. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Otago.
618 References
Perrot, Jean. (1961). Les Dérivés latins en -men et -mentum. Paris: Klincksieck.
Petersen, Christian Tobias (ed). (2005). Bibliographia gotica amplificata: Sive gotica minora V.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43232135/Bibliographia-Gotica-Amplificata.
Petersen, Christian Tobias. (2009). The Gothic Bible: Studies in 20th-century USA: Status and
results. Filologia Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 141–58.
Petersen, Christian Tobias. (2016). Behandlung und Wertung gotischer Wortstellung: 350 Jahre
wissenschaftliche Beschäftigung mit der ‘Silberhandschrift’. ZfdA 145: 158–75.
Petersen, Christian Tobias. (2017). Behandlung und Wertung gotischer Wortstellung im his-
torischen Überblick. In Jakovenko (2017: 167–82).
Petersen, Hjalmar P. (2002). Verschärfung in Old Norse and Gothic. Arkiv för nordisk filologi
117: 5–27.
Pierce, Marc. (2002). Was Gothic syllabification phonologically or morphologically conditioned?
IF 107: 241–9.
Pierce, Marc. (2003a). Prosody and Sievers’ Law in Gothic. PBB 125/2: 223–41.
Pierce, Marc. (2003b). Zur Etymologie von germ. rûna. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren
Germanistik 58: 29–38.
Pierce, Marc. (2004). The syllabification of consonant + semivowel clusters in Proto-Germanic.
HS/HL 117: 86–96.
Pierce, Marc. (2006). Syllable structure and Sievers’ Law in Gothic. Journal of Germanic
Linguistics 18: 275–319.
Pierce, Marc. (2007). Die Rolle linguistischer Theorien in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft:
Eine Fallstudie aus dem Gotischen. IF 112: 236–43.
Pierce, Marc. (2013a). Review of Kotin (2012). Folia Linguistica Historica 34: 276–81.
Pierce, Marc. (2013b). Syllable weight in Gothic. IF 118: 213–25.
Pike, Moss. (2011). Latin -tās and related forms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California
Los Angeles.
Pimenova, Natalia B. (2000). Die semantische Distribution der gotischen Abstrakta auf -ei und
-iþa. PBB 122: 3–22.
Pimenova, Natalia B. (2003). Zum Konzept der diachron-vergleichenden semantischen Analyse
von Wortbildungsmodellen: Schwache an- Maskulina mit abstrakter Semantik in altgerma-
nischen Sprachen. PBB 125/3: 301–430.
Pimenova, Natalia B. (2004a). Zur Reanalyse in der Wortbildung: Die Herausbildung des
deverbalen iþa- Wortbildungstyps im Germanischen. In Fritz & Wischer (2004: 165–84).
Pimenova, Natalia B. (2004b). Nominale Stammbildungssuffixe als Derivationsmittel im
(gemein) germanischen. In Clackson & Olsen (2004: 249–68).
Pinkster, Harm. (2015). The Oxford Latin Syntax, Vol. 1: The Simple Clause. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Piper, Paul. (1874). Ueber den Gebrauch des Dativs im Ulfilas, Heliand und Otfried. Altona: Meyer.
Piper, Paul. (1876). Review of Bernhardt (1875). Germania 21: 83–90.
Pipping, Hugo. (1899). Ueber den gotischen dat. plur. nahtam. PBB 24: 534–6.
Piras, Antonio. (2007). Manuale di gotico: Avviamento alla lettura della versione gotica del
Nuovo Testamento. Rome: Herder.
Piras, Antonio. (2009). La resa di alcuni semitismi sintattici indiretti nella versione gotica della
Bibbia. Filologia Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 159–80.
Piras, Antonio (ed). (2010). Lingua et ingenium: Studi su Fulgenzio di Ruspe e il suo contesto.
Cagliari: Sandhi.
References 619
Ralph, Bo. (2002). Phonological and graphematic developments from Ancient Nordic to Old
Nordic. In Bandle et al. (2002: 703–19).
Ramat, Paolo. (1981). Einführung in das Germanische. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Ramat, Paolo. (2008). Some aspects of the restructuring of the Germanic verb system.
Sprachwissenschaft 33: 301–15.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Randall, William, & Jones, Howard. (2015). On the early origins of the Germanic preterite
presents. TPS 113/2: 137–76.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Doron, Edit, & Sichel, Ivy (eds). (2010). Lexical Semantics, Syntax,
and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raschellà, Fabrizio D. (2011). Models and principles of Wulfila’s Gothic alphabet: Some meth-
odological remarks. In Glaser et al. (2011: 109–24).
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. (1990). Germanic Verschärfung: Tying up loose ends. In Andersen
& Koerner (1990: 425–41).
Ratkus, Artūras. (2011). The adjective inflection in Gothic and early Germanic: Structure and
development. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Ratkus, Artūras. (2015). Gothic possessives, adjectives and other modifiers in -ata. Journal of
Germanic Linguistics 27/3: 238–307.
Ratkus, Artūras. (2016). Patterns of linear correspondence in the Gothic Bible translation:
The case of the adjective. Vertimo Studijos 9: 38–55.
Ratkus, Artūras. (2017a). Features of the Gothic adjective, with special reference to determination.
In Jakovenko (2017: 103–15).
Ratkus, Artūras. (2017b). Linearisation of adnominal possessives in Gothic. Manuscript,
University of Vilnius.
Ratkus, Artūras. (2018a). Greek in Gothic translation: Linguistics and theology at a
crossroads. NOWELE 71/1: 3–34.
Ratkus, Artūras. (2018b). Weak adjectives need not be definite: The evidence of variation in
Gothic. IF 123/1: 27–64.
Ratkus, Artūras. (2018c). This is not the same: The ambiguity of a Gothic adjective. Folia
Linguistica Historica 39/2: 475–94.
Ratkus, Artūras (ed). (to appear). Studies in Gothic.
Rau, Jeremy. (2014). The history of the Indo-European primary comparative. In Oettinger &
Steer (2014: 327–41).
Rauch, Irmengard. (1972). The Germanic dental preterite, language origin, and linguistic atti-
tude. IF 77: 215–33.
Rauch, Irmengard. (1981). Toward a schwa in Gothic. PBB 103: 392–401.
Rauch, Irmengard. (2011). The Gothic Language: Grammar, Genetic Provenance and Typology,
Readings. 2nd edn. New York: Peter Lang.
Rauch, Irmengard. (2017). Toward schwa in Gothic again and its melody. Sprachwissenschaft
42/3: 231–45.
Rauch, Irmengard, & Carr, Gerald F. (eds). (1995). Insights in Germanic Linguistics, Vol. 1:
Methodology in Transition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rauch, Irmengard, & Carr, Gerald F. (eds). (1997). Insights in Germanic Linguistics, Vol. 2:
Classic and Contemporary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rauch, Irmengard, Carr, Gerald F., & Kyes, Robert L. (eds). (1992). On Germanic Linguistics:
Issues and Methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
References 621
Regan, Brian T. (1970). The differences between Greek and Gothic vocabularies: An analysis of
the use of certain Greek words in the New Testament with a view toward discovering the
true meanings of corresponding Gothic words in Ulfila’s Gothic Bible. Ph.D. dissertation,
New York University.
Regan, Brian T. (1972). The Gothic Word. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Regan, Brian T. (1974). Dictionary of the Biblical Gothic language. Phoenix, AZ: Wellspring Books.
Reichert, Hermann. (1989). Die Bewertung namenkundlicher Zeugnisse für die Verwendung
der gotischen Sprache: Methodendiskussion an Hand der Namen der Märtyrer aus der
Gothia des 4. Jahrhunderts. In Beck (1989: 119–41).
Rendboe, Laurits. (2008). Wulfilas gotiske bibeloversættelse. In Bruus et al. (2008: 35–52).
Reuland, Eric. (2008). Anaphoric dependencies: How are they encoded? Towards a derivation-
based typology. In König & Gast (2008: 499–555).
Riad, Tomas. (1992). Structures in Germanic prosody: A diachronic study with special refer-
ence to the Nordic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.
Riad, Tomas. (2004). Syllabification and word division in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics
16: 173–202.
Rice, Allan Lake. (1932). Gothic Prepositional Compounds in their Relation to their Greek
Originals. Linguistic Society of America: Lg. 8/4, dissertation 11.
Rice, Allan Lake. (1933). A note on the Gothic Bible, i Cor. xiii 2. Lg. 9: 87–8.
Ridouane, Rachid. (2006). On the feature [spread glottis]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.504.3088&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Rieken, Elisabeth. (2004). Reste von e- Hochstufe im Formans hethitischer n-Stämme? In
Clackson & Olsen (2004: 283–94).
Ringe, Donald A. (2006, 2017). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: A Linguistic
History of English. Vol. 1. (2nd edn 2017). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ringe, Donald A. (2012). Cladistic principles and linguistic reality: The case of West Germanic.
In Probert & Willi (2012: 33–42).
Ringe, Donald A., & Taylor, Ann. (2014). The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Risch, Ernst. (1974). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Rittenhouse, Rose. (2014). Verbal periphrasis in two early Germanic languages: A comparative
study of the passive and perfect in the Old High German Evangelienbuch and the Old Saxon
Hēliand. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Rix, Helmut. (1992). Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. 2nd edn. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rix, Helmut, Kümmel, Martin, Zehnder, Thomas, Lipp, Reiner, & Schirme, Brigitte (eds).
(2001). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstamm-bildungen.
2nd edn, rev. Martin Kümmel & Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Rizzi, Luigi. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman (1997: 281–37).
Rizzi, Luigi. (2001). On the position ‘int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In
Cinque & Salvi (2001: 287–96).
Rizzi, Luigi (ed). (2004). The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures.
2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberge, Paul T. (1983). Those Gothic spirants again. IF 88: 109–55.
Roberge, Paul T. (1984). Remarks on Gothic final -g. PBB 106: 325–43.
Roberts, Ian Gareth, & Roussou, Anna. (2003). Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
622 References
Robertson, John S. (2011). How the Germanic futhark came from the Roman alphabet. Futhark
2: 7–25.
Robinson, Orrin W. (2014). Review of Kotin (2012). Diachronica 31: 286–90.
Robinson, Maurice A., & Pierpont, William G. (eds). (2005). The New Testament in the Original
Greek: Byzantine Textform. Southborough, MA: Chilton.
Roedder, Edwin Carl. (1937). Gothic gasaihwan: A study in Germanic synonyms. PMLA 52:
613–24.
Rolffs, Friedrich Wilhelm. (1908). Gotisch dis- und du. Breslau: Fleischmann.
Rombouts, Stefan. (2017). The Proto-Germanic irregular weak verbs of class I. NOWELE 70/2:
121–34.
Rose, Marilyn Louise. (1976). The syntax of the reflexive pronoun in Gothic and Old Norse.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Rösel, Ludwig. (1962). Die Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen nach dem Zeugnis ihrer
Flexionsformen. Nuremberg: Carl.
Rosén, Haiim B. (1984). Zu Grundfragen der gotischen Lexikographie. In Gschwantler et al.
(1984: 369–90).
Ross, Alan S. C., & Thomson, R[obert] L. (1976). Gothic reiks and congeners. IF 81: 176–9.
Rousseau, André (ed). (1991). Sur les traces de Busbecq et du gotique. Lille: Lille University
Press.
Rousseau, André. (2003). Nouveau regard sur les modalités du gotique. Revue belge de philolo-
gie et d’histoire 81: 729–48.
Rousseau, André. (2009). Saussure à Paris (1880–1891): Le cours de grammaire gotique.
Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153: 481–504.
Rousseau, André. (2011). Cas grammaticaux et cas locaux en gotique: Les modèles casuels en
gotique. In Fruyt et al. (2011: 315–25).
Rousseau, André. (2012). Grammaire explicative du gotique Ï Ï
Ï (Skeireins razdōs Gutþiudōs). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Rousseau, André. (2016). Gotica: Études sur la langue gotique. Paris: Champion.
Rowe, Charley. (2003). The problematic Holtzmann’s Law in Germanic. IF 108: 258–66.
Rübekeil, Ludwig. (2010). Got. gards und garda : Semantische Konsistenz und
Raumkonzept. NOWELE 58/59: 269–84.
Rubio, Gonzalo. (2009). Semitic influence in the history of Latin syntax. In Baldi & Cuzzolin
(2009: i. 195–239).
Rückert, Heinrich. (1866). Die gotischen absolute Nominativ- und Accusativconstructionen.
Germania 11: 415–23.
Ružička, Jozef. (1949). Zur gotischen Grammatik. Recueil linguistique de Bratislava 1: 151–66.
Ružička, Jozef. (1951). Gótske hiri, hirjats, hirjiþ. Jazykovedný sborník Slovenskej akadémie vied
a umení 5: 259–64.
Ryan, Kevin M. (2011). Gradient syllable weight and weight universals in quantitative metrics.
Phonology 28: 413–54.
Ryder, Frank G. (1949). Verb-adverb compounds in Gothic and Old High German: A study in
comparative syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Ryder, Frank G. (1951). Syntax of Gothic compound verbs. JEGP 50/2: 200–17.
Sallwürk, E[rnst] von. (1875). Die Syntax des Vulfila. Pforzheim: Flammer.
Salmons, Joseph C. (2018). Germanic laryngeal phonetics and phonology. In Page & Putnam
(2018).
References 623
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1878). Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues
indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner (1879). (Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1968.)
Sauvageot, Aurélien. (1929). L’Emploi de l’article en gotique. Paris: Champion.
Scalise, Sergio, & Bisetto, Antonietta. (2009). The classification of compounds. In Lieber &
Štekauer (2009: 34–53).
Scardigli, Piergiuseppe. (1964). Lingua e storia dei Goti. Florence: Sansoni.
Scardigli, Piergiuseppe. (1973). Die Goten: Sprache und Kultur. Munich: Beck. [German edn of
Scardigli 1964.]
Scardigli, Piergiuseppe. (1974). Das sogenannte gotische Epigramm. PBB 96: 17–32.
Scardigli, Piergiuseppe. (1994). Zur Typologie der gotischen Handschriftenüberliefer-ung. In
Uecker (1994: 527–38).
Scardigli, Piergiuseppe. (2000). Rev. edn of Streitberg, Die gotische Bibel (q.v.). 7th edn.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Scardigli, Piergiuseppe. (2002). Nordic-Gothic linguistic relations. In Bandle et al. (2002: 553–8).
Schaaffs, Georg. (1904). Syndetische und asyndetische Parataxe im Gotischen. Göttingen: Huth.
Schaefer, Christiane. (1984). Zur semantischen Klassifizierung germanischer denominaler ōn-
Verben. Sprachwissenschaft 9/4: 356–83.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1967). Die Kirche in den Reichen der Westgoten und Suewen bis zur Errichtung
der westgotischen katholischen Staatskirche. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1979a). Zeit und Umstände des westgotischen Übergangs zum Christentum.
Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 28: 90–7.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1979b). Wulfila: Vom Bischof von Gotien zum Gotenbischof. Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 90/2–3: 105–46.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1981). Die Fragmente der ‘Skeireins’ und der Johanneskommentar des
Theodor von Herakleia. ZfdA 110/3: 175–93.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1988). Das gotische liturgische Kalenderfragment. Bruchstück eines
Konstantinopeler Martyrologs. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde
der Älteren Kirche 79: 116–37.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1990a). Die Überlieferung des Namens Ulfila: Zum linguistischen Umgang
mit der Überlieferungsgeschichte. Beiträge zur Namenforschung NF 25/3–4: 267–76.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1990b). Gotien: Eine Kirche im Vorfeld des Frühbyzantinischen Reichs.
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 33: 36–52.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (1992). Das gotische Christentum im vierten Jahrhundert. In Kraft et al.
(1992: 19–50).
Schäferdiek, Knut. (2002). Der vermeintliche Arianismus der Ulfila-Bible. Zeitschrift für Antikes
Christentum 6/2: 320–9.
Schäferdiek, Knut. (2014). Ulfila und der sogenannte gotische Arianismus. In Berndt & Steinacher
(2014).
Schaffner, Stefan. (2000). Altindish amnás, urgermanisch *e na-, keltisch *eμno-. In Forssman
& Plath (2000: 491–505).
Schaffner, Stefan. (2001). Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische
Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck: IBS 103.
Schaffner, Stefan. (2005). Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Problemen der nominalen
Morphologie und der Etymologie der altgermanischen Sprachen. 1. Die mit Suffix
*-on- gebildeten primären und sekundären Nomina. Unpublished Habilitationsschrift.
Regensburg.
624 References
Seebold, Elmar. (1971). Das germanische Wort für den Heiden. PBB 93: 29–45.
Seebold, Elmar. (1972). Das System der indogermanischen Halbvokale. Heidelberg: Winter.
Seebold, Elmar. (1973). Die Stammbildungen der idg. Wurzel *weid- und deren Bedeutungen.
Die Sprache 19/1: 20–38, 19/2: 158–79.
Seebold, Elmar. (1974). Gt. gasinþa* ‘Reisegefährte’ und gasinþi* ‘Reisegesellschaft’. PBB 96: 1–11.
Seebold, Elmar. (1975). Archaic patterns in the word formation of early Germanic languages.
TPS 77: 157–72.
Seebold, Elmar. (1984). Das System der Personalpronomina in den frühgermanischen Sprachen:
Sein Aufbau und seine Herkunft (= Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprach-
forschung 34.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Seebold, Elmar. (1992). Review of Suzuki (1989). IF 97: 303–5.
Seebold, Elmar. (2010). Die gotischen Buchstabennamen: Mit einem Exkurs über die englis-
chen Manuskriptrunen. NOWELE 58/59: 71–168.
Seebold, Elmar. (2013). Review of Kotin (2012). Beiträge zur Namenforschung 48: 124–6.
Seebold, Elmar. (2015). Entlehnung und Urverwandtschaft im vorliterarischen germanischen
Wortschatz. In Askedal & Nielsen (2015: 1–22).
Sehrt, Edward H. (1956). ai und au im Gotischen. In Karg-Gasterstädt & Erben (1956: 1–11).
Senn, Alfred. (1934). Inklusives Präteritum im Gotischen. JEGP 33/4: 493–7.
Seppänen, Aimo. (1985). On the use of the dual in Gothic. ZfdA 114: 1–41.
Šereikaitė, Milena. (2016). Towards a typology of Baltic lexical prefixes and Germanic particles.
GLAC 22: 2–14.
Shields, Ken[neth, Jr.]. (1990). Sound change, child language, and Gothic atta. Mankind Quarterly
30/4: 329–35.
Shields, Kenneth, Jr. (2006). Gothic þius—once again. IF 111: 285–91.
Shimomiya, Tadao. (2009). Characteristics of Germanic languages. In Askedal et al. (2009: 57–68).
Shopen, Timothy (ed). (2007). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 3 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sickel, F. A. Theodor [Ritter] von. (1875). Alcuinstudien. Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie
der Wissenschaften 79: 461–550.
Sievers, [Georg] Eduard. (1876). Kleine Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik, III: Die starke
Adjectivdeclination. PBB 2: 98–124.
Sievers, [Georg] Eduard. (1878a). Zur Accent- und Lautlehre der germanischen Sprachen, II:
Die Behandlung unbetonter Vokale. PBB 5: 63–101.
Sievers, [Georg] Eduard. (1878b). Zur Accent- und Lautlehre der germanischen Sprachen, III:
Zum vokalischen Auslautsgesetz. PBB 5: 101–63.
Sigismund, Marcus. (2016). Sermo Bononiensis: Annäherungen an Form und Gattung der Gotica
Bononiensia. In Auer & De Vaan (2016: 73–97).
Sihler, Andrew L. (1986a). Germanic second person endings in -st. MSS 47: 193–215.
Sihler, Andrew L. (1986b). An explanation of Gothic saisost, 2 sg. pret. of saian ‘to sow’. MSS 47:
217–22.
Sinal, Paul Allen. (1971). Lexical redundancy in Gothic, Latin, and Greek. Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University.
Sivan, Hagith. (1996). Ulfila’s own conversion. Harvard Theological Review 89: 373–86.
Sizova, Irina Antonovna. (1978). Stanovlenie germanskogo glagol’nogo slovoobrazovanija: Na
materiale gotskogo jazyka [The development of Germanic verb formation: On Gothic
material]. Moscow: Nauka.
References 627
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2013b). Gothic letter (and phoneme) statistics. Studia Linguistica
Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 130: 277–95.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2015a). Gothic contact with Greek: Loan translations and a transla-
tion problem. In Askedal & Nielsen (2015: 75–90).
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2015b). Gothic contact with Latin: Gotica Parisina and Wulfila’s
alphabet. In Askedal & Nielsen (2015: 91–107).
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2015c). Gothic aibr ‘gift, offering’. In Mańczak-Wohlfeld & Padolak
(2015: 287–96).
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2016). Gothic banja*, winja and sunja. Studia linguistica Universitatis
Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133: 97–108.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2017a). Gothic ai and au. In Jakovenko (2017: 48–58).
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2017b). Gothic (East Germanic) runes and runic inscriptions: A
critical assessment. Paper presented at Runic Inscriptions and the Early History of the
Germanic Languages: An international symposium, University of Southern Denmark
(Odense) 14 March 2017. Manuscript, University of Iceland.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2018). The phonology and morphology of foreign words in Gothic
revisited: Some observations and remarks. NOWELE 71/2: 184–222.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn, & Lock, Charles. (2018). The Codex argenteus: Some English aspects
and enigmas. In Ratkus (to appear).
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn, & Petersen, Christian T. (2012). A Gothic fragment of the Old
Testament reidentified: Landau vs. Kauffmann. ZfdA 141: 434–43.
Sommer, Ferdinand. (1912). Die syntaktische Function von sa qimanda und sa qimands. PBB
37: 481–91.
Sørensen, Martine Félix. (1974). Case grammar and child language acquisition. Georgetown
University Languages and Linguistics Working Papers 8.72–98.
Sotiroff, George. (1968). Onomastic and lexical curiosities in early Gothic. Slavic and East
European Studies 13: 53–62.
Southern, Mark R. V. (ed). (2002). Indo-European Perspectives. Washington DC (JIES mono-
graph #43.): Institute for the Study of Man.
Sroka, Kazimierz A. (ed). (1996). Kognitive Aspekte der Sprache. (Akten des 30. Linguistischen
Kolloquiums, Gdańsk, 1995.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Staats, Reinhart. (2011). Der Codex Argenteus und Philipp Malanchthon in Helmstedt: Das
Hauptdokument gotischer Sprache in karolingischer Mission und in lutherischer Reformation.
Daphnis 40/3–4: 377–410.
Stark, Elisabeth, Leiss, Elisabeth, & Abraham, Werner (eds). (2007). Nominal Determination:
Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Stassen, Leon. (1984). The comparative compared. Journal of Semantics 3: 143–82.
Stassen, Leon. (1985). Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [Briefly sum-
marized in his short 2013 sketch in http://wals.info/chapter/121.]
Stassen, Leon. (2009). Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[Stausland] Johnsen, Sverre. (2005). The historical derivation of Gothic aba and its n- stem
anomalies. HS/HL 118: 251–62.
Stausland Johnsen, Sverre. (2009). The development of voiced labiovelars in Germanic. In
Jamison et al. (2009: 197–211).
Stearns, MacDonald, Jr. (1978). Crimean Gothic: Analysis and Etymology of the Corpus. Saratoga,
CA: Anma Libri.
References 629
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1897). Zum Todesjahr Wulfilas. PBB 22: 567–70.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1903). Germanisches. IF 14: 490–8.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1905). Gotica. IF 18: 383–407.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1907a). Zum gotischen Perfektiv. IF 21: 193–6.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1907b). Gotisch dugunnun wisan. IF 22: 307–10.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1909). Gotica. IF 24: 174–81.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1910, rev. 2nd edn 1919). Die gotische Bibel, II: Gotisch–griechisch–
deutsches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1912). Gotica. IF 31: 323–34.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1914). Zur gotischen Grammatik. 1. qiman in und Verwandtes.
2. wit. In Festschrift Ernst Windisch zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 4. September 1914, darge-
bracht von Freunden und Schülern [no editors listed], 217–27. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1919). Die gotische Bibel. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1920). Gotisches Elementarbuch. 5th & 6th edns. Heidelberg:
Winter. (See also Streitberg 1981.)
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1924). Zur Flexion der gotischen Fremdnamen. In Festschrift
Eugen Mogk zum 70. Geburtstag 19. Juli 1924 [no editors listed], 434–53. Halle: Niemeyer.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1981). Gotische Syntax (= the syntax portion of Streitberg 1920
[§234–] edited by Hugo Stopp). Heidelberg: Winter.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (2000). Die gotische Bibel. 7th edn. Rev. Piergiuseppe Scardigli.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Strid, Jan Paul. (2002). Lexical developments from Ancient Nordic to Old Nordic. In Bandle
et al. (2002: 733–45).
Strid, Jan Paul. (2010). The origin of the Goths from a topolinguistic perspective: A short pro-
posal. NOWELE 58/59: 443–52.
Strid, Jan Paul. (2013). Retracing the Goths. In Kaliff & Munkhammar (2013: 41–54).
Strunk, William, Jr. (1893). Gothic emendations. Modern Language Notes 8/2: 119–20.
Stüber, Karin. (2002). Die primären s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Stüber, Karin. (2012). Kollektive Verbalabstrakta im Indogermanischen. MSS 66: 113–45.
Studi linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani. (1969). [no editors specified]. 2 vols. Brescia: Paideia.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1917). Zum gotischen Dativ nach waírþan mit Infinitiv. Modern
Language Notes 32/3: 141–51.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1922). Gothic notes. JEGP 21/3: 442–56.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1925). Gothica. JEGP 24/4: 504–11.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1926). The imperative use of the Gothic infinitive haban in Luke IX,
3. Modern Language Notes 41/6: 382–4.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1928a). Two notes on the Gothic text. Philological Quarterly 7: 78–82.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1928b). The use of the weak inflection of the Gothic adjective in a
vocative function. Philological Quarterly 7: 199–201.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1928c). A note on the Gothic particle þau. Modern Language Notes
43/4: 242–4.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1930). Gothic syntactical notes. In Studies in Honor of Hermann
Collitz, Presented by a Group of his Pupils and Friends on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth
Birthday, February 4, 1930 [no editors listed], 101–13. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1931). Gothic notes. The Germanic Review 6: 54–68.
References 631
Sullivan, Richard E. (1968). Review of Schäferdiek (1967). The American Historical Review
74/2: 556–7.
Sütterlin, Ludwig. (1887). Geschichte der Nomina Agentis im Germanischen. Strasbourg: Trübner.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1982). A metrical approach to Gothic reduplication. Linguistics 20: 587–609.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1984). On the Gothic innovation whereby u was extended to the 3. person
imperative and the optative mediopassive. IF 89: 169–78.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1986). Morphology and syntax of detransitive suffixes -þ- and -n- in Gothic:
Synchronic and diachronic investigations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1987a). Consonant clusters, sonority scales, and syllabification in Gothic.
Linguistics and Philology 7: 23–51. Tokyo: Kōgaku Shuppan.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1987b). On the infinitive in passive sense under Goth. maht- and skuld-: In
defense of the passive analysis. PBB 109: 1–13.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1989). The Morphosyntax of Detransitive Suffixes -þ- and -n- in Gothic: A
Synchronic and Diachronic study. New York: Peter Lang. [Reviewed by Seebold 1992.]
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1991). The Germanic Verschärfung: A syllabic perspective. JIES 19: 163–90.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1992). Toward an explanatory account of Thurneysen’s Law in Gothic. PBB 114:
28–46.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1994). Final devoicing and elimination of the effects of Verner’s Law in Gothic.
IF 99: 217–51.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (1995). The decline of the foot as a supersyllabic mora-counting unit in early
Germanic. TPS 93: 227–72.
Suzuki, Seiichi. (2018). Aspirated fricatives in Gothic: Verner’s Law, Thurneysen’s Law, and
final devoicing. In Ratkus (to appear).
Svärdström, Elisabeth. (1972). Der Runenring von Pietroassa, ein à-propos. In Hagberg
(1972: 117–19).
Svennung, Josef. (1967). Zur Geschichte des Goticismus. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Svennung, Josef. (1969). Zu Cassiodor und Jordanes. Eranos 67: 71–80.
Svenonius, Peter. (2004). Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. Ms.,
University of Tromsø, CASTL.
Swan, Toril, Mørck, Endre, & Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds). (1994). Language Change and
Language Structure: Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Syrett, Martin. (2002). Morphological developments from Ancient Nordic to Old Nordic. In
Bandle et al. (2002: 719–29).
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1958). Review of Chantraine (1956). Journal of Hellenic Studies 78:
147–8. (Repr. in Szemerényi 1987: iii. 1535–6.)
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1960a). Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1960b). Gothic auhuma and the so-called comparatives in -uma.
PBB 82: 1–30.
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1972). A new leaf of the Gothic Bible. Lg. 48: 1–10.
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1987–92). Scripta Minora: Selected Essays in Indo-European, Greek,
and Latin, ed. P. Considine and James T. Hooker. 5 vols. (continuous pagination). Vol. 1.
Indo-European (1987). Vol. 2. Latin (1987). Vol. 3. Greek (1987). Vol. 4. Indo-European
Languages Other than Latin and Greek (1991). Vol. 5. Word Index (1992). Innsbruck: IBS.
Takahaši, Terukazu. (1982–3). Über die Modalverben des Gotischen. KZ 96: 127–38.
References 633
Takahaši, Terukazu. (1985). Die gotischen Präpositionen, Adverbien und Verbalpräfixe zur
Bezeichnung von intra-extra-, supra-infra- und ante-post- Verhältnissen. In Heintz &
Schmitter (1985: ii. 777–91).
Takahaši, Terukazu. (1987). Germ. /sk, skw, sp, st/ als Monophoneme. Sprachwissenschaft 12/2:
157–65.
Tanaka, Toshiya. (2011). A Morphological Conflation Approach to the Historical Development of
the Germanic Preterite Present Verbs: Old English, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Indo-European.
Fukuoka: Hana-Shoin.
Teillet, Suzanne. (2011). Des Goths à la nation gothique: Les Origines de l’idee de Nation en
Occident du Ve au VIIe siècle. 2nd edn. Paris: Belles Lettres.
Terezi, Loredana, & di Sciacca, Claudia (eds). (Forthcoming). Studies on Late Antique and Medieval
Germanic Glossography and Lexicography in Honour of Patrizia Lendinara. Pisa: ETS.
Thausing, Moritz. (1863). Das natürliche Lautsystem des menschlichen Sprache, mit Bezug auf
Brücke’s ‘Physiologie und Systematik der Sprachlaute’. Leipzig: Engelmann.
Thomason, Olga. (2006). Prepositional systems in Biblical Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian,
and Old Church Slavic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Thomason, Olga. (2008). Notes on spatial semantics of Gothic prepositions. IF 113: 284–98.
Thomason, Olga. (2011). *En-phrases and their morphosyntactic and semantic particulars.
In Welo (2011: 189–207).
Thompson, Ellen. (2006). The structure of bounded events. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 211–28.
Thöny, Luzius. (2010). Die Flexion der gotischen Verbalabstrakta vom Typus Laiseins. NOWELE
58/59: 285–300.
Thöny, Luzius. (2013). Flexionsklassenübertritte: Zum morphologischen Wandel in der altgerma-
nischen Substantivflexion. Innsbruck: IBS.
Thöny, Luzius. (2018). Gothic (fidur-)dōgs ‘space of (four) days’ and some traces of collective
s- stems in Germanic. In Ratkus (to appear).
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Epstein, Samuel David, & Peter, Steve (eds). (1996). Studies in
Comparative Germanic Syntax II. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Threatte, Leslie. (1980). The Phonology of Attic Inscriptions, Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Thurneysen, Rudolf. (1898). Spirantenwechsel im Gotischen. IF 8: 208–14.
Tichy, Eva. (1980). Zum Kasusgebrauch bei Kausativa transitiver Verben. Die Sprache 26: 1–18.
Tiefenbach, Heinrich. (2010). Altsächsisches Handwörterbuch / A Concise Old Saxon Dictionary.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Timberlake, Alan. (2007). Aspect, tense, mood. In Shopen (2007: iii. 280–333).
Tischendorf, Constantinus. (1872). Novum testamentum graece: Ad antiquissimos testes denuo
recensuit apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit commentationem isagogicam.
Vol. 2. 8th edn. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Tjäder, Jan-Olof. (1972). Der Codex argenteus in Uppsala und der Buchmeister Viliaric in
Ravenna. In Hagberg (1972: 144–64).
Tjäder, Jan-Olof. (1981). Note per l’interpretazione del misterioso hugsis nel pap. Marini 118,
P. #8 in Tjäder. In Avesani et al. (1981: ii. 753–80).
Tjäder, Jan-Olof (ed). (1982). Die nichtliterarischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445–700, II.
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Tollenaere, Félicien de, & Jones, Randall L., in cooperation with Frans van Coetsem,
Philip H. Smith Jr., & Hon Tom Wong. (1976). Word-Indices and Word-Lists to the Gothic
Bible and Minor Fragments. Leiden: Brill.
634 References
Toporova, Tat’jana Vladimirovna. (1989). Problema original’nosti: Gotskie složnye slova i frag-
menty teksta [The problem of originality: Gothic compound words and units of text.]
Voprosy jazykoznanija 38: 64–76.
Toporova, Tat’jana Vladimirovna. (1996). Kul’tura v zerkale jazyka: Drevnegermanskie
dvučlennye imena sobstvennye. [Culture in the mirror of language: Old Germanic compound
proper names.] Moscow: Škola “jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.
Torre Alonso, Roberto, & Metola Rodríguez, Darío. (2013). Closing suffixes in Old English:
A study based on recursive affixation. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 48: 27–54.
Trips, Carola. (2006). Syntactic sources of word-formation processes: Evidence from Old
English and Old High German. In Hartmann & Molnárfi (2006: 299–328).
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. (ed). (2007). The Celtic Languages in Contact. Potsdam: Potsdam
University Press.
Trnka, Bohumil. (1929/1982). Some remarks on the perfective and imperfective aspects in
Gothic. Rev. edn, Trnka (1982: 205–9).
Trnka, Bohumil. (1982). Selected Papers in Structural Linguistics: Contributions to English and
General Linguistics Written in the Years 1928 to 1978. Section 4: Historical Linguistics:
Diachronic Phonology and Morphology. Ed. Vilém Fried. Berlin: Mouton.
Trofimova, Julija Mixajlovna. (2017). Polisemija gotskogo slova v ideografičeskom otraženii
[Polysemy of the Gothic word in an ideographic reflection]. In Jakovenko (2017: 184–93).
Trovato, Alfredo. (2009). Sulla funzione del prefisso ga- nella morfologia verbale del gotico.
Filologia Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 215–42.
Trubačev, Oleg Nikolaevič (ed). (1965). Ètimologija [1964]: Principy rekonstrukcii i metodika
issledovanija. [Principles of reconstruction and methodology of research.] Moscow: Nauka.
Trutmann, Albertine. (1972). Studien zum Adjektiv im Gotischen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Tunkle, Eph Herbert. (2000). Gothic forefield syntax: Focus, repair, and Wackernagel’s Law.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Turcan, Isabelle. (1982). La dépréverbation dans les langues classiques. BSL 77: 273–84.
Üçok, Necip. (1938). Über die Wortgruppen weltanschaulichen und religiösen Inhalts in der
Bibelübersetzung Ulfilas. Heidelberg: Winter.
Uecker, Heiko (ed). (1994). Studien zum Altgermanischen: Festschrift für Heinrich Beck. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Ultan, Russell. (1978). Towards a typology of substantival possession. In Greenberg et al. (1978:
iv. 11–49).
Untermann, Jürgen. (1954). Über die historischen Voraussetzungen für die Entlehnung von
got. alew. PBB 76: 390–99.
Untermann, Jürgen, & Brogyanyi, Bela (eds). (1984). Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion
der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Uppström, Andreas. (1854). Codex Argenteus: Sive sacrorum evangeliorum versionis gothicae frag-
menta quae iterum recognita adnotationibusque instructa per lineas singulas ad fidem codicis
additis fragmentis evangelicis codicum ambrosianorum et tabula lapide expressa. Uppsala: Leffler.
Urbańczyk, Przemysław. (1998). The Goths in Poland: Where did they come from and when
did they leave? European Journal of Archaeology 1/3: 397–415.
Uvíra, Rudolf. (1972). Zur syntagmatischen Phonologie des Gotischen. Acta Universitatis
Palackianae Olomucensis 1972: 57–62.
Vaan, Michiel de. (2007a). Taikns: Een inleiding in het Gotisch. Manuscript, University of
Lausanne.
References 635
Vaan, Michiel de. (2007b). Gothisch iusiza en iusila. In Van der Linde & Van Wezel (2007: 9–16).
Vaan, Michiel de, & Kroonen, Guus. (2016). Traces of suffix ablaut in Germanic wō- stems.
Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 76: 309–22.
Vaillant, André. (1946). La dépréverbation. Revue des études slaves 22: 5–45.
Valentin, Paul, & Zink, Georges (eds). (1969). Mélanges pour Jean Fourquet: 37 essais de linguis-
tique germanique et de littérature du Moyen Age français et allemand. Paris: Klincksieck;
Munich: Hueber.
Van de Velde, Freek. (2009). De nominale constituent: Structuur en geschiedenis [The nominal
constituent: Structure and history]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
Van de Velde, Roger G. (1966). De studie van het gotisch in de Nederlanden: Bijdrage tot een
status quaestionis over de studie van het gotisch en het krimgotisch. Ghent: Erasmus Press.
Van Noppen, Jean-Pierre, & Debusscher, Gilbert (eds). (1985). Communiquer et traduire:
Hommages à Jean Dierickx. Brussels: University of Brussels.
Vasiliev, Alexander Alexandrovich. (1936). The Goths in the Crimea. Cambridge, MA: The
Medieval Academy of America.
Velkov, Velizar. (1989). Wulfila und die Gothi minores in Moesien. Klio 71: 525–7.
Velten, Harry de Veltheyme. (1930). Studies in the Gothic vocabulary with especial reference to
Greek and Latin models and analogues. JEGP 29: 332–51, 489–509.
Vennemann, Theo. (1971). The phonology of Gothic vowels. Lg. 47: 90–132.
Vennemann, Theo. (1972). Phonetic detail in assimilation: Problems in Germanic phonology.
Lg. 48: 863–92.
Vennemann, Theo. (1978). Vowel alternations in English, German, and Gothic: Remarks on
realism in phonology. In Jazayery et al. (1978: i. 337–59).
Vennemann, Theo. (1985). Phonologically conditioned morphological change: Exceptions to
Sievers’ Law in Gothic. In Gussmann (1985: 193–219).
Vennemann, Theo. (1987). Muta cum liquida: Worttrennung und Syllabierung im Gotischen:
Mit einem Anhang zur Worttrennung in der Pariser Handschrift der althochdeutschen
Isidor-Übersetzung. ZfdA 116/3: 165–204.
Vennemann, Theo. (1997). The development of reduplicating verbs in Germanic. In Rauch and
Carr (1997: 297–336).
Vennemann, Theo. (2000). Triple-cluster reduction in Germanic: Etymology without sound
laws? HS/HL 113: 239–59.
Vennemann, Theo. (2003). Europa Vasconica: Europa Semitica, ed. Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna.
[A collection of 27 essays, all but one published between 1984 and 2000, well over half in
German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.]
Vennemann, Theo. (2006). Germanische Runen und phönizisches Alphabet. Sprachwissenschaft
34: 367–429.
Vennemann, Theo. (2009). Zur Reihung der Runen im älteren Futhark. In Heizmann et al.
(2009: 834–63).
Vennemann, Theo. (2010). The source of the ing rune and of the futhark. Sprachwissenschaft
35: 1–14.
Vennemann, Theo. (2013). The mediae (b g d) in Punic and in the futhark. Sprachwissenschaft
38: 1–30.
Verner, Karl. (1875). Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung. KZ 23: 97–130 (1877).
Vetus Latina Foundation. (2002–). Vetus Latina Database: Bible Versions of the Latin Fathers.
Turnhout (Vetus Latina Institut): Brepols.
636 References
Viehmeyer, Larry A. (1971). The Gothic alphabet: A study and derivation. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Vieira Pinto, Otávio Luiz. (2017). As if from this people I traced my origin: Hypotheses on the
life of Jordanes. Calamus 1: 197–222.
Vijūnas, Aurelius. (2009). The Indo-European Primary t-Stems. Innsbruck: IBS.
Vilutis, Juozas. (1972). K voprosu ob upotreblenii substantivnogo ‘sa, þata, so’ v gotskom jazyke
[On the question regarding the use of substantival ‘sa, þata, so’ in the Gothic language].
Kalbotyra 23: 155–62.
Vilutis, Juozas. (1973). Die zusammengesetzten Demonstrativa im Gotischen. Kalbotyra 25: 91–8.
Vilutis, Juozas. (1976–9). Zum Problem des (bestimmten) Artikels im Gotischen. Kalbotyra
27: 153–9 (1976), 28: 50–6 (1977), 30: 43–9 (1979).
Vilutis, Juozas. (1982). Zum Problem der syntaktischen Funktionen des adjektivischen sa, þata,
so im Gotischen. Kalbotyra 33: 103–7.
Vilutis, Juozas. (1986). Zum Entstehungsproblem einiger unbestimmter Pronomina der gotischen
Sprache. Kalbotyra 36: 122–9.
Vincent, Nigel, & Börjars, Kersti. (2010). Complements of adjectives: A diachronic approach.
In Butt & King (2010: 459–78).
Vine, Brent. (2004). On PIE full grades in some zero-grade contexts: *-tí-, *-tó-. In Clackson &
Olsen (2004: 357–79).
Vinogradov, Andrej Jur’jevič, & Korobov, Maksim Igorevič. (2015). Gotskie graffiti iz
Mangupskojbaziliki [Gothic graffiti from the Mangup basilica]. Srednie veka [The Middle
Ages] 76/3–4: 57–75. See also the popular interview and pictures at https://meduza.io/fea-
ture/2015/12/25/molitvy-na-kamnyah.
Vinogradov, Andrey, & Korobov, Maksim. (2018). Gothic graffiti from the Mangup basilica.
NOWELE 71/2: 223–35.
Viti, Carlotta. (2017). Semantic and cognitive factors of argument marking in ancient Indo-
European languages. Diachronica 34/3: 368–419.
Viteau, Joseph. (1893). Étude sur le grec du nouveau testament: Le Verbe: Syntaxe des proposi-
tions. Paris: Bouillon.
Vitiello, Massimiliano. (2005). Motive germanischer Kultur und Prinzipien des gotischen
Königtums im Panegyricus des Ennodius an Theoderich den Grossen (Die drei ‘direkten
Reden’). Hermes 133: 100–15.
Vogel, Petra M. (2000). Persönliches und unpersönliches Passiv im Gotischen. In Habermann
et al. (2000: 9–25).
Voyles, Joseph Bartle. (1968). Gothic and Germanic. Lg. 44/4: 720–46.
Voyles, Joseph Bartle. (1981). Gothic, Germanic, and Northwest Germanic. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Voyles, Joseph Bartle. (1992). Early Germanic grammar: Pre-, proto-, and post-Germanic languages.
New York / San Diego: Academic Press.
Voyles, Joseph Bartle, & Barrack, Charles M. (2009). An Introduction to Proto-Indo-European
and the Early Indo-European Languages. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
Vykypěl, Bohumil, & Rabus, Achim. (2011). From giving to existence: On one remarkable
grammaticalization pathway. Linguistica Brunensia 59: 183–7.
Wackernagel, Jacob. (1892). Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. IF 1: 333–436.
Repr. in Wackernagel (1969: i. 1–103).
Wackernagel, Jacob. (1926–8). Vorlesungen über Syntax: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von
Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. 2nd edn. Vol. 1 (1926). Vol. 2 (1928). Basle: Birkhäuser.
References 637
Wackernagel, Jacob. (1969 [1953]). Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. (Continuous pagination). Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wackernagel, Jacob, & Debrunner, Albert. (1954). Altindische Grammatik: Band II,2. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wackernagel, Jacob, & Debrunner, Albert. (1957). Altindische Grammatik: Nachträge zu Band
II,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Outhwaite, Ben, & Beinhoff, Bettina (eds). (2013a). Scribes as Agents
of Language Change (= Allen et al. 2013).
Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Outhwaite, Ben, & Beinhoff, Bettina. (2013b). Scribes and language
change. In Wagner et al. (2013a: Part 1: 3–18).
Wagner, Norbert. (1967). Getica: Untersuchungen zum Leben des Jordanes und zur frühen
Geschichte der Goten. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wagner, Norbert. (1986). Das ƕ im gotischen Alphabet. ZfdA 115/2: 143–50.
Wagner, Norbert. (1988). Gotisch *gadigis : gadikis. HS/HL 101: 296–301.
Wagner, Norbert. (1994). Zu den Gotica der Salzburg-Wiener Alcuin-Handschrift. HS/HL
107/2: 262–83.
Wagner, Norbert. (2002). Gaisericus und Gesiric. Zu ai und au im späteren Ostgermanischen
und bei Wulfila. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 37/3: 259–70.
Wagner, Norbert. (2003). Trigvilla*, Tragvila* und Triwila*. Zu -ggv- : -w- in zwei Ostgotennamen.
Beiträge zur Namenforschung 38: 275–9.
Wagner, Norbert. (2006a). Got. witoþ, -dis : ahd. wizzōd. Zum Konsonanten im Auslaut.
HS/HL 119: 283–5.
Wagner, Norbert. (2006b). Zu got. , q und ai, au. HS/HL 119: 286–91.
Wagner, Reinhard. (1909). Die Syntax des Superlativs im Gotischen, Altniederdeutschen,
Althochdeutschen, Frühmittelhochdeutschen und in der älteren Edda, 1: Die Superlative bis
zum Jahre 900. Abschnitt A I. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.
Walkden, George Lee. (2012). Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Cambridge. (Published, Oxford University Press (2014).)
Walker, James A. (1949). Gothic -leik- and Germanic *līk- in the light of Gothic translations of
Greek originals. Philological Quarterly 28/4: 274–93.
Wąsik, Zdzisław, & Chruszczewski, Piotr P. (eds). (2012). Languages in Contact 2011. Philologica
Wratislaviensia: Acta et Studia 9. Wrocław.
Watkins, Calvert. (1966). The Indo-European word for ‘day’ in Celtic and related topics.
Trivium 1: 1–2–20.
Watkins, Calvert. (1967). Remarks on the genitive. To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the
Occasion of his 70th Birthday iii. 2091–8. The Hague: Mouton.
Watkins, Calvert. (1969). Indogermanische Grammatik, iii/1: Geschichte der Indogermanischen
Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.
Watkins, Calvert (ed). (1987). Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929–1985). Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Watkins, Calvert (ed). (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 2nd
edn. Boston, MD: Houghton Mifflin.
Weber, Karin. (1991). Derivation der Substantiva im Gotischen. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Jena.
Webster, Helen L. (1889). Zur Gutturalfrage im Gothischen. Boston, MA: Cushing.
Wechsler, Stephen. (2009). ‘Elsewhere’ in gender resolution. In Hanson & Inkelas (2009: 567–86).
638 References
Wedel, Alfred R. (1997). Verbal prefixation and the ‘complexive’ aspect in Germanic.
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 98/4: 321–32.
Wedel, Alfred R., & Busch, H.-J. (eds). (2002). Verba et litterae: Explorations in Germanic
Languages and German Literature. Newark, DE: Linguatext.
Wedel, Alfred R., & Christchev, Theodor. (1989). The ‘constative’ and the ‘complexive’ aspects
in Gothic and in the Old Bulgarian of the Zograph codex. Germano-Slavica 6/4: 195–208.
Weihrich, Franciscus. (1869). De gradibus comparationis linguarum sanscritae graecae latinae
gothicae [On the degrees of comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic languages.]
Gießen: Ricker.
Weinacht, Paul. (1928). Zur Geschichte des Begriffs ‘schön’ im Altdeutschen. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Heidelberg. (Self-published, 1929.)
Weingärtner, Wilhelm. (1858). Die Aussprache des Gotischen zur Zeit des Ulfilas. Eine sprach-
wissenschaftliche Abhandlung. Leipzig: Weigel.
Weinhold, Karl. (1870). Die gotische Sprache im Dienste des Kristenthums. Halle an der Saale:
Waisenhaus.
Weisker, Eduard. (1880). Über die Bedingungssätze im Gotischen. Sechster Jahresbericht . . .
Höhere Bürgerschule (Freiburg) 3–14.
Weiss, Michael. (1994). Life everlasting: Latin iūgis ‘everflowing’, Greek ‘healthy’, Gothic
ajukdūþs ‘eternity’, and Avestan yauuaē ī- ‘living forever’. MSS 55: 131–56.
Weiss, Michael. (2006). Latin orbis and its cognates. HS/HL 119: 250–72.
Weiss, Michael. (2011). Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Repr. with
corrections. Ann Arbor, MI, and New York: Beech Stave Press.
Weißgräber, Kurt. (1929). Die Bedeutungswandel des Präterito-Präsens ‘kann’ vom Urgermanisch-
Gotischen bis zum Althochdeutsch-Frühmittelhochdeutschen. Königsberg in Preußen: Gräfe
& Unzer.
Wells, Christopher R. E. (2009). The translation of mellein in the Gothic Bible. Interdisciplinary
Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 14/2: 233–50.
Welo, Eirik (ed). (2011). Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: Contrastive Approaches. Oslo
(Oslo Studies in Language 3/3): University of Oslo.
Werth, Ronald Nicholas. (1965). A structural syntax of the Gothic gospels of Luke and Mark.
Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Werth, Ronald Nicholas. (1970). The problem of a Germanic sentence prototype. Lingua
26: 25–34.
Werth, Ronald Nicholas. (1973). Die gotischen Bezeichnungen für ‘Hoherpriester’. KZ 87: 248–68.
Wessén, Elias. (1972). Die gotische Sprache und ihre Überlieferung. In Hagberg (1972: 120–9).
West, Jonathan. (1980). Die Semantik der vierten Klasse des gotischen schwachen Verbums.
Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 99/3: 403–10.
West, Jonathan. (1981a). Die Semantik der ersten und zweiten Klasse des gotischen schwachen
Verbums. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 100/3: 321–31.
West, Jonathan. (1981b). Preverbs in Gothic and Old Irish: A typological parallel? Studia Celtica
16: 248–58.
West, Jonathan. (1981c). Proklitische Verbalpartikel und ihr Gebrauch in Bezug auf das verbale
Aspektsystem des Gotischen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 100/3: 331–8.
West, Jonathan. (1982). The semantics of preverbs in Gothic. IF 87: 138–65.
Whitehead, Benedicte Nielsen, Olander, Thomas, Olsen, Birgit Anette, & Rasmussen,
Jens Elmegård (eds). (2012). The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, phonemics, and
Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
References 639
Yoon, Hyejoon. (2009). Diachronic explanation for synchronic irregularities of Gothic nominal
declension. Eoneohag 54: 101–24. The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko. (1980). A study of the Gothic preverb ga-. Gengo Kenkyu 78: 85–113.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko. (2012). The loss of intervocalic laryngeals in Sanskrit and its historical
implications. In Klein & Yoshida (2012: 237–46).
Yoshioka, Jiro. (1986). On the influence of the Latin version of the Bible on the Gothic version
in the case of prepositions. JIES 14/3–4: 219–29.
Zacher, Julius. (1855). Das gothische Alphabet Vulfilas und das Runenalphabet: Eine sprachwis-
senschaftliche Untersuchung. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Žirmunskij, Viktor Maksimovič, & Jarceva, Viktorija Nikolaevna. (eds) (1959) Trudy Instituta
jazykoznanija. Tom IX: Voprosy germanistiki.Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.
Zadorožnyj, Bohdan Mixajlovič (1960). Porivnjalna fonetyka i morfolohija hotskoj movy.
[Comparative phonetics and morphology of the Gothic language] (in Ukrainian). Lviv:
Vydavnystvo lvivskoho universytetu. [Lviv/Lvov: University Press.]
Zagra, Amedeo. (1969). Osservazioni sulla semantica di ‘sweran’ e ‘hauhjan’ nella traduzione
gotica dei vangeli. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Lettere, Storia e Filosofia,
Serie II, 38/3–4: 215–41.
Zatočil, Leopold. (1933). Zur gotischen Syntax: Qiman in und Verwandtes. Neustadt: Meier.
Zatočil, Leopold. (1964). Zum Problem der vermeintlichen Einwirkung der gotischen
Bibelübersetzung auf die Altkirchenslavische. Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské
university A 12: 81–95.
Zatočil, Leopold. (1980). Fragmentum goticum spirense. Sborník prací filozofické fakulty
brněnské univerzity studia minora facultatis philosophicae universitatis brunensis K 2: 9–27.
Zieglschmid, A. J. Friedrich. (1931). Werdan und wesan with the passive in various Germanic
languages. The Germanic Review 6/4: 389–96.
Zimmer, Stefan. (2000). Urgermanisch *þeγ-na-z ‘Gefolgsmann’. American Journal of Germanic
Linguistics & Literatures 12: 291–9.
Zimmer, Stefan (ed). (2009). Kelten am Rhein II: Philologie. Sprachen und Literaturen. Mainz
am Rhein: Zabern.
Zironi, Alessandro. (2009). Models for the edition of Gothic texts: The case of the Gotica
Carolina. Filologia Germanica / Germanic Philology 1: 243–72.
Zoëga, Geir T. (1910). A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zucha, Ivo. (1989). Zum schwachen Adjektiv in prädikativer Stellung. IF 94: 301–5.
Zukoff, Sam. (2017). Indo-European reduplication: Synchrony, diachrony, and theory.
Ph.D. dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Zukoff, Sam, & Sandell, Ryan. (2015). A new approach to the origin of the Germanic strong
preterites. Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society
(NELS) 45: 3. 39–48.
Zych, Donna Ann. (1981). The semantic systems of the prepositions of separation in Gothic,
Old High German, and Old Saxon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign.
INDEX OF GOTHIC WOR DS
Words are arranged alphabetically, except that prefixed verbs are listed under the verb root rather than by
the prefix. Nouns, even if derived via the same prefix, are listed under the prefix.
Adjectives are listed in the order masculine, neuter, feminine, unless all three are not attested, in which
case only safe reconstructions are provided. Strong forms alone are cited unless the adjective is exclusively
weak.
Nouns are listed in the nominative case, whether attested or not. An unattested citation form bears
the usual following asterisk. For neuters and other paradigms in which the nominative and accusative
are identical, a citation like un kunþi (acc) means that the nominative would have the same form but
is unattested.
For verbs, lemmata contain at least the attested principal parts and some safe reconstructions. Other
forms are indicated when discussion is provided for them. An asterisk after a verb form has its standard
function. In the index, an asterisk before an unprefixed infinitive can mean either that no form of the sim-
plex is attested or that the verb does not occur in the nonpast system. This ambiguity is not followed in the
main text where an asterisk preceding an unprefixed infinitive signals that no form of the simplex occurs.
An item in a footnote is not identified separately from the page on which the footnote is found.
All occurrences of every word in this grammar are not registered in this index. In particular, very fre-
quent words, like g(u)þ ‘God’ or auxiliaries, are listed only when some specific property is illustrated.
Conjunctions, complementizers, frequent pronouns, possessive adjectives, and prepositions are listed
only when information is provided about them.
A page number in boldface signals discussion of one or more of a word’s properties.
Several words appear with no page reference because they happen not to be discussed in this grammar,
but they contribute to listed forms. For instance, bi-arbaidjan is not discussed but it justifies arbaidjan* as
a safe reconstruction.
aba 58, 61, 235, 402, 422, 524, 556 afstass 116, 342, 439, 529
abraba 79, 100 afta 97
abrs 79 aftana 98
ada (Crim.) 5, 6, 56 aftaro 98, 272
af 233–5 aftra 46, 97, 221, 385, 402, 410, 413, 463, 464,
af- . . . af 274 523, 554
af sis silbin 247 aftraanastodeins* 321
afar 101, 235f., 292 aftuma* 71
afardags* 142, 292 aggilus (pl aggiljus, aggileis) 28, 41, 147, 153,
afarsabbate 292 246, 258, 271, 430, 486, 523,
afetja 13, 547 524, 546
afgrundiþa 302 aggwiþa 49, 329, 332
afgudei* 535 *aggwjan
afguþs* (afgud-) 302, 320, 513, 549 ga-aggwjan* 329
aflet (acc) 124, 165, 239, 505 aggwus*, aggwu 72, 73, 339, 465, 470,
afmarzeins 123 500, 523f.
afsateins* 342 agis (agis-) 32, 98, 110, 141, 327, 354, 525
bokos afsateinais 116, 529 agisleiks* 318, 492
644 Index of Gothic Words
bidan / bidjan, baþ / bad, bedun, *bidans 91, 94, blinds 27, 77, 144, 152, 166, 186, 225, 240, 267, 277,
104, 105, 171, 184f., 200, 229, 252, 358, 409, 433, 442, 450, 455, 460,
313, 383, 394, 395, 408, 413, 414, 415, 520, 528, 557, 559
435, 438, 448, 460, 468, 517, 557 blinda sums 77
bidjam 138 twai blindans 358
bidjats, bidjos 225, 226, 227, 441, 451 Barteimaiaus blinda 358f.
ƕis bidjau? 171 bloma* 115, 345
us-bidan* 184, 412 blotan 187, 189, 288
biƕe 37, 85 blotinassus* 325
bilaif 301 bloþ (bloþ-) 4, 6, 110, 117, 143, 174, 278, 437,
bimait 454 463, 545
-bindan, -band, -bundun, bundans 177, 181, 400 bloþarinnandei 305
and-bindan, and-band, and-bundun, bnauan* 42, 44
and-bundans* 162, 181, 225, 227, boka 89, 115, 116, 212, 251, 287, 330, 342, 363, 384,
264, 410 439, 481, 528f.
andbindats 225 bokareis 137, 247, 362, 363, 482, 553
ga-bindan, ga-band, ga-bundun, ga-bundans þai bokarjos
163, 181, 225, 400 bota* 244
gabundans handuns jah fotuns 112 du botai 244
eisarnam . . . gabundans was 139, 240 botjan*, botiþs* (botid-)
birodeins 37 ni waihtai botida 138
bisauleins* 123, 126 ga-botjan* 523, 554
bisitands 81 braidei 327
bistugq (acc) (bistug(g)q-) braiþs*, braid 72, 107, 470, 500, 529
stain bistuggqis 118 brakja 143
bisunjane 257f., 386, 487 *brannjan
biþe 58, 64, 115, 117, 258, 342, 452, 463, 561 ga-brannjan*, ga-branniþs* (ga-brannid-) 264
biuþs* (biud-) 14, 131, 261 gabrannidaizos 98, 115
-biudan*, -báuþ, -budum, -budans* 177, 528 briggan / bring-, brāhta, brāhtedum, *brāhts 170,
ana-biudan*, ana-bauþ, ana-budum, 190, 246, 320, 416, 470, 476, 529
ana-budans* 149, 165, 180, 229, bringiþ 28
415, 422, 431, 460 brāhta 33
faur-biudan*, faur-bauþ / faur-baud 151, 180, -brikan, brak, *brekum, -brukans* 183, 340, 437
264, 383, 460 ga-brikan*, ga-brak, ga-brukans* 183, 231, 264
biugan* 4, 134 uf-brikan 183
ga-biugan*, ga-bugans* 240 brinnan* 318, 492
biūhti 349f., 515 uf-brinnan*, uf-brann 480, 492
biūhts 349f., 410 broþar 4, 58, 60, 61, 135, 145, 147, 151, 152, 165, 169,
biuþs* 223, 268, 269, 313, 389, 394, 445,
blandan 165, 273, 395 487, 508, 509, 529, 557
ni blandaiþ 465 jūs broþrjus 109
ni blandan 466 broþrahans 373
bleiþei 328 broþralubo* 286, 319
bleiþs 328, 528 broþrulubo* 319
bliggwan*, -blaggw, -bluggwun, -bluggwans 53, brūkjan, brūhta 131, 151, 194, 529
56, 277 brūks, brūk, brūks 146, 489
us-bliggwan*, us-blaggw, us-bluggwun, brunjo* 116
us-bluggwans 277, 310 brunna 4
*blindjan brusts (pl) 106, 517
ga-blindida 145, 402 brūþfaþs / brūþfads 283, 319, 436, 561
Index of Gothic Words 649
brūþs* daur 5, 6, 72, 73, 107, 212, 239, 268, 465, 470,
-bugjan, bauhta, bauhtedun, -bauhts 145, 163, 194, 500, 530
279, 399, 411, 414, 440, 529 daurawaurda* 286
fra-bugjan, *fra-bauhta, fra-bauhtedun, daurawaurdo 286
fra-bauhts 137, 146, 156, 194, daurawards 132, 286
221f., 287, 459, 481 *daursan
us-bugjan*, us-bauhta, us-bauhtedun, ga-daursan: ga-dars, ga-daursum; pret
us-bauhts* 145, 194, 279 ga-daursta, ga-daurstedun 209,
bwssaun (dat) 140 210, 278, 385
dauþjan*
*daban af-dauþjan, af-dauþidedun*, af-dauþid-
ga-daban, ga-dob, ga-dabans* 111, 187, 204, dauþau afdauþjaidau 141
392, 429 ga-dauþjan* 206
daddjan* 56 *dauþnan (*dáuþnan)
dagands* 81, 495 ga-dauþnan, ga-dauþnoda, ga-dauþnodedun
dags 4, 27, 58, 59, 65, 86, 96, 109, 119, 120, 141, 229, 89, 206, 389
235, 237, 247, 248, 253, 263, 292, ga-ba-dauþniþ 527
312, 382, 408, 431, 435, 437, 473, miþ-gadauþnan*, miþ-gadauþnodedum 399
500, 503, 506, 511, 529, 553, 560 dauþs, *dauþ, dauþa 73, 76, 107, 179, 228, 254,
daga ƕammeh 238, 505 365, 418, 421
daigs 126, 184 Lazarus sa dauþa 358
daila* dauþus 89, 132, 141, 164, 166, 243, 260, 488, 525
dailjan leika dauþaus 118, 486
af-dailjan* skula dauþaus 119, 356
dis-dailjan*, dis-dailida, dis-dailiþs 264 diabulos 16
fra-dailjan*, fra-dailiþs* 264 diabulus (diabaul- / diabul-) 3, 16, 41, 255, 513
ga-dailjan*, ga-dailida, ga-dailiþs diakaunus / diakon 481, 482, 483
dails* 438, 536 diakaunjus 41
us dailai 255 digan*, daig, *digum, (-)digans 89, 179, 231,
daimonareis 364 495, 506
dalaþ 97, 253, 474, 475, 502, 529 digana 370
dalaþa 97 ga-digan*, ga-digans 179
dalaþro 97 digrei* 327
dals* 225, 529, 543 dis- 266
daubei 332 diswiss* 334
daubiþa* 329, 330, 331, 332 diupei 327, 328, 332, 344
*daubjan diupiþa 32, 109, 148, 329, 331, 332, 348,
ga-daubjan*, ga-daubida 145, 402, 520 382, 505
daufs* (dáufs), daubata (acc) 39, 329, 331, 520, diups* 328, 329, 330, 530
529, 561 diupaizos airþos 497, 500
daug (v. dugan*) dius* (diuz-) 242
dauhtar 61, 117, 408, 554 diwans* 327
dauns 506 *dobnan
daupeins 46, 74, 118, 123, 140, 151, 343, 344, 417, af-dobnan*: one form attested: 2sg impv
463, 477 afdobn 192
daupjan, daupida, daupidedum*, daupiþs 122, domjan, *domida, domidedun, -domiþs 106, 170,
140, 194, 218, 219, 248, 343, 404, 194, 278f., 385, 424
432, 450, 530 af-domjan, af-domiþs 194, 502
daupjaindau 463 ga-domjan, ga-domidedun, ga-domiþs 194,
daupjands 81 278f., 385, 424
650 Index of Gothic Words
fiskja* 359, 364 205, 212, 220, 227, 239, 240, 241,
fiskon 202 244, 246, 252, 253, 271, 318, 325,
fisks* 5, 123, 126, 202, 359, 376, 506, 532 340, 359, 391, 407, 416, 437, 439,
fitan* 104 457, 473, 483, 505, 506, 532, 545,
flaihtan* 366 548, 553
-flaugjan* fraujinassus* 325, 539
us-flaugjan*, us-flaugiþs* fraujinon, fraujinodedun 151, 202, 325, 552
usflaugidai 141 fraujinonds* (m)
flauts* 392 voc fraujinond 81
*fliugan 532 1.frawaurhts, frawaurht*, frawaurhta 114, 388,
flodus 44, 45, 337 434, 487
flokan*, faiflokun 45, 189 frawaurtis 42
fodeins* 137 2.frawaurhts (frawaúrhts) (f) 38, 70, 105, 115, 124,
fodjan*, fodida, fodidedum*, fodiþs 194 129, 144, 156, 172, 235, 239, 242,
jau barna fodidedi 280, 539 388, 438, 458, 505, 506, 507, 557
fon (fun-) 62, 88, 116, 139, 319, 378, 400, 472, 492, 532 freidjan* 131
in gaiainnan funins 117 freihals / freijhals 301
fotubandi* 287 freis 119, 170
fotubaurd 287, 290, 319 friaþwa 29, 89, 123, 326
fotus 98, 143, 144, 145, 188, 240, 261, 290, 382, 401, frijaþwamildeis* 281, 295f.
532, 539, 555 frijon, frijoda, frijodedun, frijoþs* 29, 57, 109, 178,
fra- 266 180, 202, 209, 252, 344, 377, 385,
frabauhtaboka (acc) 287, 289, 481, 499 388, 389, 403, 413, 418, 436, 440,
fragifts* (fragift- / 1x fragibt-) 26f., 239 503, 524, 532f., 552, 557
fraihnan, frah, frehun, fraihans 171, 174, 185, frijondans wiljan seinana 137, 281, 557
227, 445, 448, 460, 532, 556 frijonds 81, 114, 144
ga-fraihnan*, ga-frehun 185, 445 pl frijonds ≠ frijondans 81
fraisan*, -faifrais*, fraisans 129f., 189, 347 frijons* 344
*us-fraisan, us-faifrais* 189 frisahts 106, 550
fraistubni* 347, 478, 493 frodei* 148, 406
fraiw (fráiw) 51, 157, 163, 479, 497, 499 frodoza* 79, 136
fralet (acc) 491 frodozans sunum liuhadis 136
fralusts 71, 334, 470 froþs (frod-) 74, 79, 333, 436, 474, 501, 533
sunus fralustais 119 fruma- 320
fram 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 246ff., 498, 557 fruma, frumo, frumei 95, 96, 137
fram mis / sis silbin 247, 557 fruma Jiuleis xxv, 95
framaldrozei 79 fram fruma 95
framaldrs* 119 þata frumo 101
framaþeis* 119 frumabaur 301
framis 101 frumist 101
framwairþis 121 frumisti* 255
framwigis 121 frumists, frumist (acc), frumista
fraþi (fraþj-) 148, 297, 447 88, 127, 141, 287
fraþjamarzeins 287, 319 fugls* 45, 374, 454, 479, 533
fraþjan, froþ, froþun 156, 187, 207, 278, 304, 386, fula* 29, 225, 227
402, 406, 441, 443, 444, 446, fulgins* 32, 369
495, 532 ƕa fulginis 128
fulla-fraþjan* fullatojis 297, 307
fullafraþjam 207 fullaweis* 148, 297, 307
frauja 14, 39, 65, 89, 108f., 113, 115, 120, 124, 142, fullawita* 293, 297, 307, 308
151, 153, 164, 167, 168, 170, 183, 202, fulleiþ(s)* 336
Index of Gothic Words 653
ni . . . ƕas / ƕas . . . ni 86, 229 at-iddja, at-iddjedum 260, 292, 474, 475
ƕe (q.v.) du-at-iddjedun 267, 409
ƕo mis boto 244 3sg þairh-iddja, þairh-iddjedun 275
ƕashun 90 us-iddja, us-iddjedun 256, 391, 415
ƕassei 547 usïddja 24
ƕaþ / ƕad 97 us-iddja / uz-uh-iddja 266
ƕaþar 67, 92, 410 wiþraïddja 256
ƕaþaruh* 92 idreiga (acc) 508, 561
ƕaþaramme[h] 92 daupein idreigos 118
ƕaþro 97, 538 idreigon*, idreigo, idreigodedun 458, 538
ƕazuh, —, ƕoh 27, 86f., 117, 160, 405, 417, 436, idweit (acc) 538
438, 439, 463, 473, 474, 475 id-weitjan (v. -weitjan)
dagis ƕizuh 121 iggqara (v. jut)
ƕe 85, 103, 228 igqis / iggqis / inqis (v. jut*) 226, 227, 425, 457
ƕe managizo 138 ija, ize, im 84
ƕe sijaina galeikai 147 ijos, izo, im 84
ƕe wasjaima 140, 462 ik, mik, mis; weis, uns(is) 82
ƕeh 453 ik-ei 433
ƕeila 86, 110, 120, 240, 253, 254, 425, 436 meina (gen) 64, 82, 112, 120, 132
(in) þizai ƕeilai 141 im, is, ist (v. 1.wisan)
ƕeilo ƕoh 505 in 29, 248f., 498
ƕeilaƕairbs*, ƕeilaƕairb 384 in-uh þis 249
ƕeilan*, ƕeilaidedum, -ƕeilaiþs 229 ingardja* 293, 321, 322
ƕeilohun 92, 164 inkilþo 139, 367
ƕeits*, ƕeit* (acc), ƕeita 31, 537, 553 inn 29, 266, 408, 537
ƕeitata* 6 inn- 266
ƕelauþs* 89 inna 97, 538
ƕileiks, ƕileik, ƕileika (1x ƕeleika) 89, 134, 183, innana 98
318, 449, 561 innaþro 97, 471, 538
ƕoftuli 249 innuma 71, 98
in izwaraizos ƕoftuljos 249 innuman (v. in-niman*)
ƕopan, ƕaiƕop (ƕaíƕop) 28, 91, 189, 207, 213, insahts
279, 493, 554 inuh / inu 259, 508
*ƕotjan, ƕotidedun 152 in-uh 487, 560
ga-ƕotjan*, 3sg ga-ƕotida in-uh þis 249, 487, 508
inwindiþa 287
ibai / iba (i-ba) 221, 225, 447, 452, 453, 463, inwinds* 201
507, 537 inwitoþs 119, 303, 315, 321
ibai aufto 447 is, ina, is, imma 84
ibai (…) ni 417, 418, 447, 537 iz-ei (v. izei)
ibdalja* 293, 321, 322 ita, is, imma 84
ibna- 320 itan, -et, etun, *itans 119, 185, 218, 400, 538
ibnaleiks* 316, 318 fra-ïtan*, fret, fretun 185, 400,
ibnassus 326 479, 532
*ibnjan fraïtiþ 24, 185
ga-ïbnjan* 163 iþ 91, 122, 258, 277, 289, 381, 413, 430, 442,
ibns* 71, 147, 316, 317, 326, 515 456, 457, 466, 471, 483, 505,
iddja (3sg), iddjedum (v. gaggan) 57, 191, 236, 507, 538, 557
453, 471 iþ jabai 507
iddjedun-uh 252, 512 iþ X V-uh 18, 381, 445
iþ Iesus iddj-uh 512 sa iþ wesi praufetus 507
660 Index of Gothic Words
iudaiwisko 100, 378 jut*, igqis / iggqis / inqis 82, 225, 226, 227
iup 97 iggqara (gen) 82
iupa 443 jūþan (v. jū)
iupana 98
iupaþro (ïupaþro) 47, 92, 97, 253, 456, 484, 538 kaisaragild (acc) 288, 462, 557
iusila 538 kalbo* 98, 115
iusiza 253, 538 kalds*, kald 116, 365
izei / ize 230, 433f., 471 kalkinassus 325, 333, 559
ïzei 24 kannjan, 3sg kannida, -kannidedun, kanniþs* 105,
izwar, izwar, izwara 462, 476, 504, 524 164, 173, 195, 340, 484, 540
izwara 125, 128, 468 ga-kannjan, ga-kannida, ga-kannidedun,
izwiz-ei (v. jūs) ga-kanniþs* (ga-kannid-) 164,
173, 195, 222, 513, 540
ja (ja) 518, 539 us-kannjan 165
þata ja ja 66 kannt / kant (v. 1.kunnan)
jabai 242, 279, 382, 405, 421, 430, 454, 456–9, 485, kara 111, 434, 444
494, 503, 507, 523, 526, 534, 537, (ni) kar’ist 111, 509
538, 554, 557 karkara (acc) 3, 516
jabai (…) ƕas/ƕa 85f., 110, 113, 124, 128, 161, karon* 111
166, 169, 171, 200, 227, 271, 317, ni karos 111
384, 385, 389, 413, 425, 447, 456–9 ga-karon* 111
jabai mik frijoþ 503 kas 117, 371
þu nu jabai inweitis mik 507 kasja 253
unte jabai 507 katils(?)* / katilus(?)* 123
jah 404, 431f., 459, 469, 539, 545, 560 kaupatjan, kaupastedun 208
jai 109 kaurbaunan* <kaurbanaun> 223
jainar 97 kaurei 332
jaind 97 kauriþa* 329, 332, 392
jaindre 97 kaurjan*, kaurida, kauridedun, -kauriþs 196,
jaindwairþs 97 206, 326
jains, jainata (acc), jaina 64, 67, 72, 122, 142, 169, ana-kaurjan* 196, 264
174, 237, 239, 241, 243, 248, 260, miþ-kaurjan*, miþ-kauriþs 196
277, 388, 448, 473, 474, 475, 500, kaurn (acc) 5, 6, 336, 358, 368, 540
504, 506, 534, 539 kaurno 116, 358
jainþro 58, 97, 103, 107, 384, 502, 538 kaur(u)s* 329
jaþþe (jah-þe) 484, 539 kausjan, *kausida, -kausidedum 132, 196, 337
jau (ja-u) 91, 280, 467, 539 bi-kausjan* 196
jer 94, 96, 110, 117, 120, 204, 229, 539 ga-kausjan*, ga-kausidedum 196
du jeram þrim 242 kawtsjo* 483, 498
jiuhts* 367 kelikn (acc) 45, 164, 412
jota 430 kilþei* 367, 495, 547
jū 92, 220, 384, 464, 476, 516, 539 kindins 369, 410
jū-þan 208, 454, 539, 553 kinnus* 240, 555
juggalauþs 61, 125, 132 kintu (acc) 3
juggs*, jugg / juggata (acc), jugga* 78, 152 -kiusan, *kaus, -kusun, -kusans 31, 180, 337, 386
juggata 49, 68, 92, 248 ga-kiusan, ga-kusans 151, 180
jūhiza 78 us-kiusan, us-kusun, us-kusans 156, 180, 222,
juk* 38, 353, 539 223, 224, 423
jukuzi* 116, 251 klismjan* 207
jūs, izwis 430, 433, 460, 466, 469, 471, 504 klismo 345
(jūs / izwis) jūz-ei, izwiz-ei 421, 433 kniu* 44, 50, 59, 134, 145
Index of Gothic Words 661
razn 45, 117, 241, 259, 260, 368, 436, 474, 475, 499, rūna 120, 173, 241, 350, 434, 547
504, 547 runs 105, 110, 134, 201
-redan, -rairoþ, *rairodum, -redans* 190
faura-ga-redan*, faura-ga-rairoþ, faura-ga- sa, þata, so 63
redans* 190 sada (Crim.) 5
ga-redan* 190 sah, þatuh, soh 64, 144, 412, 560
und-redan 190 sabbato 29, 121, 141, 454, 511
reiki* (reikj-) 105, 173, 351, 477, 539, 547 inwisandin(s) sabbate dagis 121f.
reikjis 48 sabbataus 121
1.reiks (adj) saei, þatei, soei (sa-ei, þat-ei, so-ei) 436–9
reikists* 113, 283 þaimei ~ þaim þoei 443
2.reiks (m) 63, 91, 158, 467, 477, 488, 539, 547 þammei, þizei, etc. 440
reiro 266 in þizei 480, 486
rign 4, 45, 368, 474, 475, 547 þammei (comp) 442–5
rignjan*, 3sg rignida 111 þans þaiei, þans þanzei, etc. 440
rignida swibla jah funin 139 þata . . . (þat)ei 442
rimis* (rimis-) 250, 354 þatei . . . þata 442
miþ rimisa 250, 354 þatei (free rel) 441
rinck, ringo (Crim.) 4, 286 saggws* 29
rinnan*, rann, -runnun, runnans* 53, 181f., 402 sagiþa* 330
du-rinnan* 264 sagqjan*, -sag(g)qiþs / -sagqids 198
ga-rinnan*, ga-runnun, ga-runnans* 181, 219, *uf-sagqjan, uf-sag(g)qiþs 198
239, 289, 402, 468 saƕazuh, þataƕah 87, 437
und-rinnan* 182, 264, 438 saƕazuh saei / izei / *þei 438
ur-rinnan*, ur-rann, ur-runnun 181, 417, 433, sai 52, 467, 479, 495, 547f.
446, 479, 536 iþ nu sai 548
at sunnin . . . urrinnandin 480, 551 saian, saíso, saisoum*, saians* 31, 43, 157, 190, 237,
at urrinnandin sunnin 134, 551 417, 442, 479, 548
sa . . . urrinnanda 80f. saijiþ / saiïþ 24, 29
urrinnando 480, 498, 500 saisost 190
riqis / riqiz (riqiz-) 62, 252, 354, 355, 371, 537 saiands 163, 417
riqiza 28, 354 (sa) saiands 479
riqizeins* 148, 354, 371 saihs 5, 93, 242
riqizjan* 354 saihsta, *saihsto, saihsto 96, 253
riqizeiþ 48, 248, 354 saiƕan, saƕ, seƕum, -saiƕans 170, 186, 229, 273,
riurei 131, 244, 327 340, 341, 399, 402, 411, 414, 416,
riurjan* 488f. 420, 431, 432, 438, 449, 461, 464,
riurjand 51 475, 523, 548, 550
*in-riurjan, in-riurida 488f. du saiƕan im 152
riurs* (riurj-) 447 saei saiƕiþ 403, 417
rodjan, rodida, rodidedum, rodiþs* 91, 125, 139, sai ~ saíƕ 547
156, 167, 173, 198, 208, 243, saíƕ 36, 52, 91, 164
262, 372, 382, 392, 407, 411, 414, saiƕats 227, 460
425, 437, 443, 446, 458, 484, at-saiƕan* 130, 186, 246, 262, 471
547, 554, 557 atsaiƕiþ izwis 136
rodida sis ains 125 saiƕiþ ei atsaiƕiþ 431f.
bi-rodjan*, bi-rodidedun 160, 275 bi-saiƕan* 130f., 258, 264, 386
*miþ-rodjan, miþ-rodidedun 208, 399 ga-saiƕan, ga-saƕ, ga-seƕum, ga-saiƕans 186,
rohsns* 97 199, 206, 231, 279, 289, 388, 395,
rūm (n) 129 400, 402, 412, 421, 432, 443, 445,
rūms (adj) 33, 72, 107, 470, 500, 547 456, 461, 484, 552
670 Index of Gothic Words
swaran, 3sg swor, *sworum, *swarans 122, 188, tagl (acc) 140, 174, 374f., 510
208, 255, 414 tahjan*, tahida
bi-swaran* 188, 208 dis-tahjan*, dis-tahida 390, 398, 460
ufar-swaran* 188, 208, 309 1.taihswa*, taihswo, taihswo 71, 407, 418
sware / 1x swarei 101, 447, 552 2.taihswa* (f): dat sg taihswai 71
swartis* / swartizl* 354 taihun 5, 27, 93
swartiza / swartizla 354 *taihunda, *taihundo, taihundo* 96
swarts*, swart (acc) 354, 552 taihuntehund 93, 95, 125
swaswe 113, 164, 168, 205, 307, 382, 411, 429, 454f., taihuntehundfalþs*, taihuntaihundfalþ 322
476, 478, 552f. -taiknjan 164, 199, 425
SC ptc 118, 170, 553 *ga-taiknjan, ga-taiknida 199
swaswe (…) ni 454f., 553 us-taiknjan, 3sg us-taiknida, us-taiknidedum*,
swe 101, 197, 251, 279, 315, 381, 389, 390, 393, 405, us-taikniþs (us-taiknid-) 199, 391, 425
418, 423, 436, 454f., 552 taikns 76, 105, 127, 199, 538
SC ptc 175, 554 tains* 515
swegniþa / swigniþa* 330 *tairan
swegnjan* <swignjan>, 3sg swegnida 207, 330 dis-tairan* 184, 264
swein* 116, 119, 554 distairiþ / distairid 70, 184
sweran* 17 ga-tairan, ga-tar, ga-taurans* 184, 222, 416, 430,
ga-sweran*, ga-sweraiþs / ga-sweraids 17 454, 463
sweriþa 92, 165, 170, 332, 333 gatairanda 546
swers 147, 170 sa gatairands 81, 109, 263
swes, swesata (acc), swesa (acc) 17, 119, 139, 168 taitrarkes / taitarkes 65
þo swesona leikis 119 talzjan*, talziþs* (talzid-) 31
sweþauh 246, 471, 523, 526, 554 talzjands (PrP) ‘teaching’ 81
jabai sweþauh 554 talzjands* (m) ‘teacher’ 81
sweþauh jabai 554 *tarhjan
swibl* (n?) 139 ga-tarhjan, ga-tarhida, ga-tarhiþs* <gaþarhiþs>
*swiglon, swiglodedum 208 gatarh|jan 47
swiknei 255, 332 taui (toj-) 62, 425, 491
swikniþa* 332 in tojam 491
swikns*, swikn (acc), swikna (acc) 278 taujan, tawida, tawidedun, -tawiþs* 127, 170, 199f.,
swikunþaba 100 204, 225, 227, 229, 252, 306, 307,
swikunþs, swikunþ, swikunþa 147 318, 356, 382, 400, 401, 407, 416,
swiltan*, swalt, -swultun, *swultans 5, 182 434, 436, 439, 440, 441, 447, 453,
ga-swiltan, ga-swalt, ga-swultun 141, 182, 458, 463, 465, 466, 469, 472, 474,
214, 557 475, 507, 524, 526, 552, 554f.
miþ-gaswiltan 182 ni galiug taujandans 291
-swinþjan, -swinþida, -swinþiþs* (-swinþid-) tauj- : tawi- 55
in-swinþjan, in-swinþida 206 tawei 465
swinþoza 78, 79, 137 taujands 81, 203, 262, 280, 516
swinþs* 79 sa taujands 473
swistar 4 taujats 227, 457
swnagogafaþs* 283, 407 þuk taujandan armaion 407
swnagoge* 17, 98, 113, 114. 283, 334f. ga-taujan, ga-tawida, ga-tawidedum, ga-tawiþs*
swogatjan* 208 (ga-tawid-) 89, 170, 199, 226,
*swogjan 227, 243, 333, 399, 400, 424, 425,
*ga-swogjan, 3sg ga-swogida 208 426, 441, 452, 454, 472, 473, 501,
uf-swogjan* 208 510, 548
swumfsl (acc) 45 gataujos 226, 239
Index of Gothic Words 675
Proper nouns (especially personal and place names) in the Gothic corpus and other sources that appear
in this grammar are listed alphabetically here.
Simeon 33
Swmaions 12, 33 Xreskus 25, 41
Swria* 50 Xristus 24, 61, 113, 156, 166, 239, 244, 251, 315, 326,
385, 421, 425, 426, 433, 450, 453, 487, 505,
Teibairius* 96, 477 508, 552
Teimauþaius 61 þai Xristaus 114
Tervingus 361 þaim in Xristau 476
Theudila 376
Tobeias 416 Zaibaidaius* 114
Trauas* Zakarias (Zakar- / 1x Zaxar-) 24, 92, 104, 105, 236
Trauadai 43 Zakkaius (Zakk- / 1x Zaxx-) 61
Triggu(il)a* / Triuu(il)a* / Triggwila 29, 376 Zauraubabelis / Zauraubabilis 12
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
This index focuses on items which are not confined to a single location, which can be found in the Table
of Contents, and contains entries that are absent from the Table of Contents.
absolute participle structures 107, 133f., 239, 384, purposive (v. purpose clauses)
394, 407ff. resultative 520
accusative 407f. resumptive 71, 75
dative 107, 133f., 384, 407f. subject 406
with at 134, 239, 394, 480 adjunction
genitive 121f. negative 267f., 273f.
historical status 408f. particle 268, 269f.
nominative 407f. preposition 269, 270–5
accusative and infinitive (AI) 18, 387, 388, 421–9, adverb
455, 478 accusative 101, 113
avoidance 422f., 427f. adjectival neuter 101
finite clause substitution 422f. -ba 100
case feature licensing 427, 428f. comparative 79
origin 429 deictic 96–9
with qiþan 426f. -e 101
with verbs of volition 423 genericizing locational 87f.
accusative and participle or adjective 169f., genitive 101, 121, 122
419ff., 478 -is 101
adjective 66–79 -isko 378
attributive 73ff., 262, 372, 497f., 504f. -leiko 317f.
impersonal vs. raising 410 misso 392f.
inflection 66–70 -o 100f.
linearization 497f., 504f. P-word 101
predicate 72ff. relative 435
psych vs. material 410 sentential 99f.
strong 66ff., 71f. VP 99f.
weak 66ff., 71f. adverbial
identifying, classifying 74, 76f. postverbal manner 406
vocative 75f. agreement 103–6
adjunct default 104
adverbal dative 134, 136 mismatches 104–7, 420
appositional 71, 75 alliteration 14f., 279
comitative and manner 250 alliterative verse 14f.
coordinated 391 anaphor / anaphora 107,
genitive 71 382–93
onset 29 binding (q.v.)
predicate 72 discourse 383, 390, 391
prepositional phrase 232 in prepositional phrases 386f.
688 Index of Subjects
Thurneysen’s Law (TL) 28, 32, 331, 347, 355, 369, V1 501, 511ff.
373, 518 V2 501, 511f., 513f.
translation variation 14f. V-final 136, 501, 507, 510, 514, 520
two-reflexive system (v. anaphor) Aux-final 508ff., 520
V-object / object-V 501ff.
Verner’s Law (VL) 30f., 32, 328, 331, 339, 366, 369, vocative 58, 61, 75f., 108f.
373, 518, 560 broþar, fadar 30, 529
verb -u- stems 40, 61
ditransitive 152, 155, 162, 164, 165, 173, 175, Vorlage 14, 15, 18ff., 164, 282, 304, 364, 379,
356, 477 401, 509