Talk:Gothic language/Archive 1

Gutisk

Hello, I'd like to know where you found the name gutisk for the Gothic tongue. I cannot read it in Wulfila's Bible, nor in the Skeireins. Is it in Ogier de Busbecq's Turkish Letters? I only know gutþiuda, "Goth people", in the Gothic Calendar (aikklesjons fullaizos ana gutþiudai gabrannidai). Vincent Ramos 19:19, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since no one answers, I think it's better to comment the image. Vincent Ramos 00:25, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gutisks is only reconstructed (gut-þiuda > *guta > *gutisks).--84.160.187.214 12:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Gothic Unicode

Does anybody even have gothic unicode fonts installed? it would seem advisable to give latin/ascii transcriptions (all I see are little squares with unicode-char numbers) dab 12:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, some people have gothic unicode fonts installed.

Isn't the transcription "gutiska razda"?

I've added a special characters note with a link to a list of fonts on the Gothic wikipedia. SteveW | Talk 12:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took a TTF GNU sans serif and added this-and-that. Download from RursusSans.ttf. At due time I'll ad a link to the got.wikipedia.org. Rursus 00:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex Argenteus

I don't know enough to mess with this article, but it should be pointed out that Codex Argenteus is not the name of the Gothic bible translation as such, but only of one particular manuscript. / up◦land 08:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's true. I created Gothic language fragments to explain the situation. This should really be corrected. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Voluminous addition from French Wikipedia

I've added a rather large section of text translated from the French Wikipedia. You can see closer translations (my intermediate translations) at User:Diderot/Gothic and User:Diderot/Gothic phonology.

I've done what I can to integrate the text, but I've had to extrapolate some French ambiguities and change it a bit to make it fit with the English text.

1. French article contains: By comparison, Icelandic is the only modern Germanic language that preserves all those cases. in the subsection Morphology#Nouns This doesn't seem right to me. German has a four case system too.

You're right. I do not know how I've been able to write such a nonsense. It's now corrected. Vincent Ramos

1. The French article suggests that Crimean Gothic isn't really Gothic and has nothing to do with real Gothic. I have reduced the rhetorical force of that claim dramatically to align with Crimean Gothic.

In fact, I did not claim that Crimean Gothic was not Gothic at all but that it's not Wulfila's Gothic, the one you study in comparative linguistics. « Les termes semblant appartenir au gotique retrouvés dans les manuscrits postérieurs (rapportés au XVIe siècle) de Crimée ne correspondent peut-être pas exactement à la même langue » and « les termes ne sont cependant pas représentatifs de la langue que Wulfila a notée et il est plus que probable que ce ne soit pas réellement du gotique au sens où on l'entend en linguistique historique ». Vincent Ramos

1. Is Busbecq's book called Letters from Turkey or Turkish Letters in English?
2. I have expanded the section on Documents in Gothic and it now included, I think, all the information from Gothic language fragments. Does there still need to be a page at Gothic language fragments? It seems superfluous.
3. In the French version, the phonetics section is split off from the rest of the page. This page is now quite long. Should it be broken up?
4. Please check on my work - both for translation errors, copyeditting, and for factual accuracy. I am not an expert on Gothic - I'm a linguist and translator. Thanks. --Diderot 13:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to read it but my English is quite rouillé, now. By the way, nobody answered my once asked question:

« Hello,

I'd like to know where you found the name gutisk for the Gothic tongue. I cannot read it in Wulfila's Bible, nor in the Skeireins. Is it in Ogier de Busbecq's Turkish Letters? I only know gutþiuda, "Goth people", in the Gothic Calendar (aikklesjons fullaizos ana gutþiudai gabrannidai). Vincent Ramos 19:19, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) ». Vincent Ramos 16:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no, I quite agree that Gothic language fragments can be completely absorbed into this article. It would be nice to have articles on the individual manuscripts, though. Great job on this article! dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll deal with the fragments article. I'll post its history here so that there's a record of where I got the text from. Merci, Vincent pour la confirmation sur l'islandais. It seems I missed that "peut-être" in the original, so I'll fix it here. This is exactly the kind of quality control I need. As for "gutisk", I have no idea, but I do find a few references to it on the web. --Diderot

About gutisk: I do too, but it does not prove anything; maybe the same repeated error. In fact, I checked again: this word is not used by Wulfila. It may be Crimean Gothic. Vincent Ramos 18:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*gutisk is reconstructed, I think from latinized forms in Jordanes. c.f. [1] for a well-informed posting. dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we'd have to consider it very hypothetical. If we'd try the same thing with reconstructing the native name of the dialect of Gotland (Old Gutnish and Gutnish language), it is obvious that it is very problematic. Let's start with the fact that the island's dialect call the island Gutland and its inhabitants Gutar. Then it would seem straightforward to add the North Germanic suffix -(i)sk to the root Gut and arrive at *Gutiska or *Gutska as the likely native name for the dialect. However, they call it Gutniska with a pleonastic n inserted in the name. The only origin I can imagine for this n is an older plural *Gutoniz (cf. Gutones), i.e. the same as Gutans. Consequently, I think it should be added that *Gutiska is a very hypothetical construction. It could just as well have been Gutniska razda.--Wiglaf 21:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, this, together with gothiscanza, makes for a quite credible case, I think. But we may still want to use that asterisk. dab (ᛏ) 21:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I am not suggesting Gutnisk. I just wanted to point out the uncertainty of the reconstruction.--Wiglaf ca 21:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's what I gathered. as a reconstruction, it is necessarily uncertain, but it's not a particularly bad case, I think. I say either use the asterisk, or remove altogether. dab (ᛏ) 22:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine now.Wiglaf 22:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diderot, a very impressive contribution :).--Wiglaf 21:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and Vincent! dab (ᛏ) 22:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes! :)Wiglaf 22:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gothic language fragments history

The contents page Gothic language fragments have been merged into this article.
(cur) (last) 14:00, 9 Feb 2005 Ferkelparade m (link palimpsest)
(cur) (last) 10:51, 29 Nov 2004 Dbachmann m
(cur) (last) 10:49, 29 Nov 2004 Dbachmann
(cur) (last) 10:47, 29 Nov 2004 Charles Matthews m (lk)
(cur) (last) 10:46, 29 Nov 2004 Dbachmann
(cur) (last) 10:44, 29 Nov 2004 Dbachmann
(cur) (last) 10:43, 29 Nov 2004 Dbachmann
(cur) (last) 10:40, 29 Nov 2004 Dbachmann

Translation

• Article: fr:Gotique
• Corresponding English-language article: Gothic language
• Worth doing because: Much more extensive than English-language article. The French-language article is a featured article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Originally Requested by: -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Status: unclaimed I've started in on it here. Diderot 08:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Anybody who wants to copyedit it should go to it. --Diderot 14:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Other notes:

Gothic Strong Verbs

I've just created an article East Germanic strong verb and exported material there from the overview article (Germanic verb) where it was obviously out of place, but this new article needs a lot of work. It would be ideal if it were structurally parallel to West Germanic strong verb, with the same headings, sections, formats, tables etc., which would make comparisons and cross-references easier. Is there anyone here who is well-enough up on Gothic to do it? Otherwise I will fetch a Gothic grammar from the library and give it a go myself, but my scope for error would be much greater than that of someone with prior knowledge. --Doric Loon 15:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most closely resembling which modern language?

An anonymous user added this: Although it is the only known East Germanic language, and thus has no close living relatives, the modern language most closely resembling it appears to be German, a West Germanic language. I'd like some second opinions on this, especially since it jars with the hypothesis of a close relationship with North Germanic languages.--Wiglaf 17:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the statement is certainly wrong. there is hardly a "closest modern relative", other than all Germanic languages taken together. Or, if anything, the most archaic of living Germanic languages, which would be Icelandic. The North-East hypothesis afaik may be a majority opinion, but by no means undisputed. There are (or were?) also East-West and North-West hypotheses (possibly with weaker support), and I think most people would just take an agnostic stance. Compare the North/East/West controversy on Lombardic language: Migration Age Germanic dialects would have been mutually comprehensible, and if a given tribe just kept migrating enough, it will not fit into any tree model in the end. dab (ᛏ) 08:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dab! :)--Wiglaf 08:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know you know, but since you asked :) dab (ᛏ)

The vocabulary of Gothic resembles something pretty archaic between German and the east Nordic language block (Danish/Bokmål-Norwegian/Swedish). The syntax of Gothic doesn't very much resemble any modern language at all, but resembles the proto-Norse, such as a sequence from the Tune stone that I once translated:

Thrijoz dohtriz dalidun arbija, sijoster arbijano. (proto-Norse),

*Threis dauhtrjus dalidedun arbja, ... (unsecure)... (Gothic),

Three daughters splitted the inherited goods, ... Rursus 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Passive voice and reduplication.

Can anyone give an example of this passive voice that Gothic inherited from IE but which the other Germanic languages lost? Also...what reduplications still exist in English, German, Old Norse, etc.? The only one I could think of was "did", but as far as I know, the past tense suffix -ed coming from "do" was only a hypotheses. Thanks.

Did is not a real duplication, even if the dental suffix really does come from the verb do. There are no reduplications in English or German, though there are two remnants in Old English. See West Germanic strong verb. As far as I know there are none in Old Norse either. --Doric Loon 17:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Icelandic

Im an Icelandic and have been reading the article about the gothic language. A well written and informative article. What I found most interesting was the text example. It was fairly easy to read and understand for an Icelander. Just to let you know. The Icelandic - and its ancient, sometimes extinct relatives - seem frozen in time...

It's true that the text sample is easy to understand, but please remember that the language in the text sample on this page is not Gothic, it's Gutnish - derived from Old Norse so it's more or less identical to Icelandic. In other word, it would be surprising if an Icelander would not understand it. :-) Perhaps it should be made more obvious on the page that the text is not Gothic. It's a bit strange that the only non-English text in an article about Gothic isn't in Gothic. JdeJ 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

<q>

This passage about the phoneme marked by <q> is a bit confusing to me: "[kʷ] is a complex Stop consonant followed by a labio-velar approximant, comparable to the Latin qu." I am no expert of Gothic, so I won't challenge the analysis of the realisation of the phoneme as a stop followed by an approximant, but if that is accurate, it shouldn't be phonetically transcribed as [kʷ] (which denotes a velar stop with simultaneous lip rounding, not a sound sequence), but simply as [kw]. I hope someone would clarify on this detail. --Oghmoir 11:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I’m of the understanding that it is, actually, [kʷ] and that the textual discription is incorrect. Still, I don’t think it’s possible to know the actual phonetic realisations of the sounds... Without some other confirmation i'm reluctant to change the article tho. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 11:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Felix on both points; cf. Gothic forms such as sagq and triggw, which appear to contain syllable final [kʷ] and [gʷ] respectively.

Gothic letter in the edit tools box

The Gothic letter ƕ is now available in the edit tools box. Click on the drop-down menu and select "Indo-European"; it's the last one. þ is there too. --Angr (tɔk) 09:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

affinity

Website for Unnown Language Identyfication using n-gram algoritm recognize the full text as Czech or Polish (a>0.2), given the text is entered whithout spaces, spaces dividing words are not inscribed in original version of Codex Argenteus.

what do you have against to include above text in article ? do not tell its nonesential it may change a lot.

It's not interesting; one random program, out of several alternatives, says that Gothic sort of looks like Czech or Polish. Woo hoo.--Prosfilaes 13:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

cleanup and review request

The text doesn't please me, kind-of... First Gothic is an East Germanic IndoEuropæan language: the text should compare Gothic to the Germanic Languages first, and the oddities of the Germanic languages are:

• Grimm's law, pisc/fisk, ped/foot, therm/warm, etc..
• Strong/weak adjective inflection (handled by the text),
• Strong/weak verbs, the weak verbs using the unique -ed/-de suffix,
• No future tense whatsoever (I'll fight for this: the alleged "future tense" construction of f.ex. Swedish is a confusion between proscriptive forms and future predictions),
• Perfect/plusquamperf by auxilliary verb only.

Gothic is archaic by:

• Retaining dual number person inflection in verbs,

etcblaetc... Rursus 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Specifically by the Visigoths"

Most of the surviving fragments are Ostrogothic; the original translations/works are mostly fourth-century and predate either Visigoths (emerge 370s-390s) or Ostrogoths (emerge 450s-480s). Jacob Haller 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*gutiska razda?

Does anybody object if I remove that alleged self-appellation from the lead? We don't normally include self-appellations of extinct languages. This one is unsourced, apparently reconstructed by way of OR, and then even rendered in two historical alphabets in which the usage of this expression is of course not attested either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

*k^w to *p unique to Greek?

The article currently states:

The interrogative pronouns are also noteworthy for all beginning in ƕ-, which derives from the proto-Indo-European
consonant *kw that was present at the beginning of all interrogratives in proto-Indo-European. This same 
etymology is present in the interrogratives of many other Indo-European languages", the Latin qu- (which persists in 
modern Romance languages), the Greek τ or π (a derivation of *kw that is unique to Greek)...

But the same sound shift seems to have occurred in the Brythonic languages. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And some of the Italic languages. Dependent Variable 10:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think *k^w to *t (before e and i) is unique to Greek. Possibly, the editor means the particular set of changes, sometimes τ, sometimes π (the change of *k^w to *k before *u is not reflected in Attic interrogatives). I would drop the bracketed phrase. Koro Neil (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Language extinction

I just looked at the little information box and read this: "Language extinction by 18th century". Can anyone confirm this date? I am not that familiar with Gothic but it must have been extinguished some centuries before that. --89.53.11.29 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A spoken East-Germanic language (Crimean Gothic) survived into the 16th century. Given that it existed (without leaving many traces) before the 16th century, it could have existed (without leaving many traces) after the 16th century. The reference to the 18th century comes from the political and ecclesiastical history of Crimea during and after the Russian conquest. Jacob Haller 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's why I found so many dates: 16 th century, 17 th century, etc. However, is there a consence that Crimean Gothic is a Gothic dialect? I mean there are only few words that have "survived" and they are very similiar to Dutch (D) and High (HG) and Low German (LG): Bruder - Bruder (HG), Stul - Stuhl (HG), alt - alt (HG), Hoef - hoofd (D) - Hööft (LG), Tag - Tag (HG), kommen - kommen (HG), schieten - schieten (D) - scheeten (LG), lachen - lachen (HG, LG, D), geen - gehen (gehn) (HG), Miera - Mirr (LG) and so on. Of course there are always similarities between Germanic languages (sing [Engl] - singen [HG, LG, D]) but in this case how can we be sure of? We have only one source and its author seems to be influenced by at least one of the languages/dialects mentioned above. Furthermore he stated in his letter, that he was quite unsure about what he was describing: "Hi Gothi an Saxones sint, non possum diiudicare." [2]. Do we have certainity now or is it rather unclear? --89.53.11.29 17:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One reason for thinking of "Crimean Gothic" as "a dialect of Gothic" is cultural: the Crimea constituted the eparchy (diosese) of "Gothia", a name which derives from the migration of Germanic speakers known, at least to Classical writers, as Goths. Linguistically, the single, not-altogether-reliable word list which is our only evidence for the language shows some features reminiscent of Biblical Gothic which suggest that Crimean Gothic has a lineage going back to the early East Germanic settlers: the d in ada "egg", representing Proto-Germanic *jj (where North Germanic has gg and West Germanic retains the semivowel); complete lack of i/j-mutation: ada, statz; also the form of the numerals with their final vowel ita (Bibl.Go. ita "it"), tua (Bibl.Go. twa), thria (Bibl.Go. þrija), likewise the final unstressed vowel of the weak neuter plural oegene (Bibl.Go. augona); and the survival of Proto-Germanic *z as a spirant (whereas in North and West Germanic *z > r), e.g. Cr.Go. ies "he" : Bibl.Go. is : German er; Cr.Go. schuos "bride" (probably a misprint for *schnos) : Old English snoru, Old Norse snør "daughter-in-law". As pointed out by Ottar Grønvik in "Die dialektgeographische Stelling des Krimgotischen und die krimgotische cantilena", this last example is particularly significant, as the printing mistake suggests that Busbecq didn't recognise its Germanic provenance, and thus couldn't have assimilated the form to that of a more familiar cognate in Dutch or German. However, Grønvik (ibid.) also posits a significant West Germanic influence in the language of the settlers; he argues on phonological grounds that this must have been an form of West Germanic which separated from the main branch at an early date, before /e:/ > /a:/ (cf. Cr.Go. mine "moon"), or /z/ > /r/. Characteristically West Germanic is the shortened form geen : Bibl.Go. gaggan (i.e. /gangan/), and a number of other features which depend on how one reconstructs Crimean Gothic phonology. But since no major, reliable evidence for East Germanic survives beside Biblical Gothic, I suppose it could be that some of the defining features of Biblical Gothic (that have traditionally been taken as the defining features of East Germanic in general) weren't universal among the Goths, Vandals, etc. E.g. Crimean Gothic apparently shows a-umlaut of Proto-Germanic *i and *u, and failure to raise PG *e to *i when a central vowel followed in the next syllable; but, as in West and North Germanic, *i and *u remain before nasal + consonant: singhen, ringo. In all this, it resembles West and North Germanic rather than Biblical Gothic. There is no sign of the Biblical Gothic rule that *i and *u are lowered to mid-vowels before r or h in stressed syllables: Cr.Go. thurn "door" : Bibl.Go. daur, dauro. In some cases, Busbecq may have inadvertently or naively assimilated a word he heard to a cognate form which would have been familiar to him from Dutch or German, but, as mentioned, this can't account for all examples: schuos seems to show a-umlaut of PG *u, but Busbecq was apparently not familiar with any cognate. Forms such as stul, bruder, alt, hoef, etc., whether corrupted in transmission or not, could be the natural development of East Germanic cognates of the West Germanic examples you cite; Grønvik supposes that voiced stops had become devoiced unaspirated stops, cf. criten, plut, and that Busbecq transcribed these with c, k, p, t, or with g, b, d indiscriminately, or else influenced solely by the spelling of words that he recognised from the West Germanic languages he knew. Note the tendency in parts of the Gothic manuscripts for /o:/ to be confused with /u:/. Is there a consensus? I don't know; it's traditional to think of Crimean Gothic as a dialect of Gothic, and I would say that's a fair description, providing "Gothic" is understood in a broad enough sense, i.e. not simply the language of the Bible translation. Dependent Variable 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. It's a pity that only a few words survived. I think Busbecq seemed to be influenced at least by Dutch dialects. His transcription of singhen might follow Middle Dutch conventions. However, I also think that it's hard to say which words may be corrupted and which may not. He just transcribed spoken words so he might have misheard some of them (sometimes it's very hard to distinguish between /b/ and /p/ or /e/ and /i/) or he had to transcribe phonemes he had never heard before. Sometimes our brain just misinterpret words (because we don't always get the whole sound information). These are only some factors that influences such a transcription. It's a pity that we only have one source. --89.53.31.75 08:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; with only one source it's easy too read to much into certain details. Another obscuring influence which I don't think we've mentioned is the fact that, according to Busbecq, of his two informants, the native speaker had forgotten his own language through frequent dealings with Greeks, while the other (who could speak the language) was himself Greek in origin! There is some interesting speculation at the Gothic Online site, based on Stearns ("Crimean Gothic: analysis and etymology of the corpus", 1978), about the possible influence of Greek as spoken in the region. There is an attempt here to spot patterns and thereby distinguish between some of the influences. E.g. the lack of initial h in those words which Busbecq didn't recognise as Germanic (ano, ael, iel) suggests that it was he who added h to words like handa, hoef, which appear in this list of words that he did identify as similar to his own language. The preservation of PGmc. *z as a spirant, and the "sharpening" of PGmc. *jj to a dental stop, are the most telling details to suggest that this language descended from that of the Goths rather than being due to later Saxon settlement; both of these details are attested in the list of words that sounded unfamiliar to Busbecq, and are unlikely to be due to chance or Greek influence. But you're absolutely right: without further sources it's impossible to come to any firm conclusion about many of the apparent features of the language as recorded by Busbecq. Dependent Variable 01:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

*gutiska razda, again?

It's back! I thought it was agreed it should go, or at least there was no objection to its removal last time it was discussed, see #*gutiska razda? above for the argument. Can the person(s) who wanted it reincluded please step forward? Otherwise I'll remove it again some time soon. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favour of removal, along with the justificatory paragraph:

The native name for the language is unattested, and the reconstruction *gutiska razda is based on Jordanes' Gothiskandza, read as gutisk-andja, "gothic end (or border)". razda "speech" is attested, e.g. in Matthew 26:73

The etymology given here could do with a reference anyway, and discussion of alternative possibilities, since this isn't the only interpretation. But I don't really think that's relevant to the article. Including a reconstruction of the Goths' name for their own language raises too many questions, e.g. whether a strong or a weak adjective would have been used (and if weak, whether accompanied by a demonstrative); what order the noun and adjective were in; besides historical questions of who might have used the term and how broadly, whether one fixed term was in use or many; and to what extent it would have coincided with modern usage of the term "Gothic language"--to name but a few. Interesting to speculate, but I don't think this is the place for it. Even if someone could produce a set of reasons for one particular form, to include a full argument would weigh the article down with needless distraction. Dependent Variable 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, removing it now, thanks for the input. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions for corrections or improvements

I am no expert concerning Gothic and don't want to make any unwarranted changes in this (very good) article, but I think I've found a couple of minor mistakes or problem sentences. First, this sentence: "He commissioned a translation of the Greek Septuagint into the Gothic language, of which roughly three-quarters of the New Testament and some fragments of the Old Testament have survived." As far as I know, the "Septuagint" (the word "Greek" is actually superfluous, isn't it? - unless included to orient readers who don't know anything about the Septuagint, of course) is a Greek translation (mostly from Hebrew) of the Jewish bible, also known (to Christians) as the Old Testament. The New Testament, of which the original (or oldest preserved) text is in Greek, does not form part of the Septuagint. I would suggest that all this might be solved simply by replacing the words "Greek Septuagint" with "Greek Bible" in the sentence quoted. Right? --A R King 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's another. I can't make any sense of this sentence: "/aː/ is found often enough in other contexts: brūks "useful" (Dutch gebruik, German Gebrauch, Swedish bruk "usage")." The example doesn't seem to correspond to the statement; or if it does, it does so in a way too obscure for me to comprehend as a casual reader! Cheers, Alan --A R King 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another: "Nasals in Gothic, like most languages, are pronounced at the same point of articulation as either the consonant that follows them ( assimilation). Therefore, clusters like [md] and [nb] are not possible." Either the word "either" is superfluous here (as it seems to be), or else the first sentence is incomplete. --A R King 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This phonetic transcription must be wrong: "waddjus [waɟːe]" (at the end of the section on the pronunciation of stops). --A R King 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether the level of detail in the Sounds section is really appropriate for this article. My view is that it would be better to move this to a Gothic phonology page and just cover the basics here. --Pfold 16:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense to me, Pfold. Alan --A R King 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are serious problems with the phonology section. There have been some attempts to rectify these, but it's still rather chaotic. The opening sentence ("It is possible to determine more or less exactly how the Gothic of Ulfilas was pronounced, primarily through comparative phonetic reconstruction.") is misleading, and sets the tone for what follows; there are significant uncertainties over how Gothic was pronounced, and well-known disagreements between scholars, especially on certain points such as whether Proto-Germanic /ai/ and /au/ survived as diphthongs (I notice they're treated inconsistently in the ensuing discussion!), or whether /r/, /l/, /m/ and /n/ could be syllabic finally and between consonants, or whether h had an allophone [x] (also treated inconsistently in the article: dauhtar [dɔxtar] : jah [jah]), whether vowel length was phonemic, etc. Ideally each controversial point should be acknowledged as such, and any preference backed up with reasoning or a reference.

In fact, it would be better to say "It is *not* possible to determine exactly how the Gothic of Ulfilas was pronounced". The expression "comparative phonetic reconstruction" is unclear; it could be referring to comparison between the sounds of cognate languages (not a very accurate way of determining Gothic pronunciation), although the context suggests that it probably refers to comparison with the use of similar letters in Greek (which offers a lot of information, though it can't tell us everything).

"it is possible to reconstruct much of Gothic pronunciation from translated texts" is potentially misleading, since it could be taken to imply that there is a body of indisputably original texts in Gothic as well as translations.

"In addition, the way in which non-Greek names are transcribed in the Greek Bible and in Ulfilas' Bible is very informative." This statement is too vague as it stands. Is the writer referring to names that might have come into Gothic via Latin before the Bible translation? If so, the idea could do with further explanation. If not, I'm not sure what the significance is; since other non-Greek names have entered Gothic via Greek, why should they have any extra importance in determining Gothic phonology than other Greek names and words?

I'm curious about the statement that "In the end of a word and before a voiceless consonant, [voiced stops] were most likely also devoiced". I don't know of any internal evidence such as spelling variants that would support this idea. Where does it come from? What is the reasoning behind it? I notice that it's ignored elsewhere in the article: triggws [trigʷːs].

"It is likely that the relatively unstable sound /ɸ/ became /f/." What is the basis for the statement that /ɸ/ is a "relatively unstable sound"?

"Accentuation in Gothic can be reconstructed through phonetic comparison, Grimm's law and Verner's law." How? Verner's Law indicates only the stress patterns of Pre-Germanic; if was already completed before Gothic emerged. Grimm's Law describes Pre-Germanic consonant shifts. It has nothing to do with Gothic accentuation.

Dependent Variable 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth removing the long lists of Germanic cognates such as "sign" (English token, Dutch teken, German Zeichen, Swedish tecken)? These are cited erratically for some words but not others. There's no consistency over which other Germanic languages are mentioned. It seems superfluous to the discussion of phonology. Likewise the list of cognates in the section on verbs. Where it is necessary to cite Germanic cognates, it might be a good idea to limit these to other old Germanic languages (to avoid the distraction of later sound changes specific to the individual languages).

I suggest removing some of the Indo-European background, in particular the final paragraph of Pronouns.

The interrogative pronouns are also noteworthy for all beginning in ƕ-, which derives from the proto-Indo-European consonant *kw that was present at the beginning of all interrogratives in proto-Indo-European. This is cognate to the wh- at the beginning of many English interrogatives which, as in Gothic, are pronounced with [ʍ] in some dialects. This same etymology is present in the interrogratives of many other Indo-European languages" w- [v] in German, v- in Swedish, the Latin qu- (which persists in modern Romance languages), the Greek τ or π (a derivation of *kw that is unique to Greek), and the Sanskrit k- as well as many others.

This is the second unnecessary detour about varieties in English pronunciation of wh! The exact pronunciation of cognates in other branches of Germanic and Indo-European isn't directly relevant in an article about Gothic. I would have thought these details belong rather in articles about Indo-European, Germanic or the individual languages mentioned.

I certainly don't think the pronouns are "noteworthy" for beginning ƕ-, given other Germanic equivalents. I would simplify to, "The interrogative pronouns begin with...", and drop the bracketed phrase about the unique Greek derivation. Otherwise I'd leave it.

Cognate pronunciations can be relevant. For example, Icelandic gives a picture of Old Norse þ and ð that is consistent with modern Icelandic usage—voiceless at the beginning of a morpheme, otherwise voiced. Modern continental Scandinavian languages, on the other hand, render them d or t, in a way that indicates that Verner's Law operated in Proto-Norse as it did in Old English. Gothic has a single symbol (represented in Roman transliterations as ƕ), whose pronunciation would presumably be unknown without the evidence of other Germanic languages, and English dialects provide the clearest modern reflex of the Germanic sound. Koro Neil (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the writer means by "Gothic is unusual among Indo-European languages in only preserving [dual number] for pronouns." (1) Gothic doesn't only preserve dual number for pronouns; (2) Gothic isn't unusual among the old Germanic languages for preserving dual number for pronouns; (3) Gothic is unique among the old Germanic languages for preserving dual number for verbs as well as for pronouns!

Would anyone object to removing the non-scholarly External links - "Gothic for Travellers: Good conversation starters are death, torture, eating and drinking", "Gothic Lessons" and "English-Gothic Dictionary (Also contains neologisms and reconstructed words)"?

The examples sa lagga manna and ains laggs manna occur nowhere in the surviving texts. It ought to be made clear that these are reconstructions. But they may be flawed in several ways, e.g.: it's unclear whether Gothic laggs could have the meaning "tall"; the example is misleading because Gothic has no indefinite article (ains still had the meaning "one", "only"). Better to use an attested example, I think.

Dependent Variable 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch common gender

Although in the Netherlands most people have forgotten which words are male and which are female, Flemings and dictionaries still know and as far as I know it's incorrect in Algemeen Nederlands to use the male pronoun "hij" for female words and vice versa.

19th-century Gothic?

In The Bible in Spain, George Borrow (who was an accomplished linguist) claims to have found Gothic speakers in Spain. Any ideas what he was referring to? Koro Neil (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain was ruled by the Visigoths for several centuries, but I doubt whether there were any Visigothic speakers in 19th-century Spain... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Gutnish and a-umlaut

The article says:

"Old Gutnish (Gutniska) shows a number of similarities with Gothic which are not shared by other Old Norse dialects: lack of the a-umlaut in short high vowels [...]"

Old Swedish also lacks a-umlaut. The example fulk (folk in "other" Old Norse dialects) in Old Gutnish is also valid for Old Swedish. Take this Old Swedish text as an example. There I find:

"Nu kan fulk i bro skaþa liuta ok dör af, böte siu marker þen bro atte varþa, ok taki þem arua þes döþa, ok vari eenska þera."

I have high-lighted fulk. In normalized Old Norse spelling it'd be something like:

"Nú kann fulk í bró skaða ljúta ok dœr af, bœti sjú mark(i)r þenn bró átti varða, ok taki þém arfa þess dœða, ok vari énska þéra."

The reason Modern Swedish has o (or å) instead of u in most of these cases is due to later developement analogous to how y was opened to ö and e was opened to ä. NB: Even in my rather western dialect there's a lack of a-umlaut. Unlike Standard Swedish we even clearly separate old u and o: Old Swedish hul 'hole' (MSwe hål, MIce hol) has in the modern dialectal language another vowel than Old Swedish spor 'trace' (MSwe spår, MIce spor), namely [ɞː] vs [ɔː] (or [oː] vs [ɒː] in some dialects belonging to my dialect group). // Jens Persson (81.235.129.222 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I get the impression that the Old Scandinavian dialects form a continuum with regard to a-umlaut of Proto-Germanic */u/, with -- roughly speaking -- fewer examples the further east you go. There certainly seems to have been some a-umlaut in many varieties of Old Swedish (e.g. in the text you link to: kost, -gome, lot (as well as lut), flota, flotholme, son), although less than Icelandic (kununger : konungr; fulk : folk). Old Gutnish, on the other hand, has no trace of a-umlaut of */u/ at all.

Especially interesting is Axel Kock's comment att man i fsv. ord med kort rotstavelse (särskilt i Östg.-lagen) finner spår av regelbunden växling av o : u enligt den germ. a-omljuds-lagen: kona : kunu, hola : hulu, sonason: sunum (dat. pl.) etc., koma : kumin (part.), kumi (pr. konj.), [...]"

("that one finds in Old Swedish words with a short root syllable (especially in the East Gautish Laws) traces of regular alternation between /o/ and /u/ in accordance with the Germanic rule of a-umlaut: kona : kunu, hola : hulu, sonason : sunum (dat. pl.) etc., koma : kumin (part.), kumi (pr. subj.), [...]")

Axel Kock, "Några bidrag till fornnordisk grammatik," Arkiv för nordisk filologi. Ny följd. Andra bandet. 1890 [ http://runeberg.org/anf/1890/0018.html ].

Dependent Variable (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gothic = Danish

I don't know where or how to present this information, and as I haven't edited here, I should really leave it to those of you with an overview. However, in other articles we occasionally have the problem that a reference to an older scholarly text (pre-1750) mentions "Gothic" but means Danish. As I am sure you all know, early philology took the Scandinavian languages to be Gothic, encouraged by Swedish place-names like Gothenburg. In such cases I want to add a warning that "Gothic = Danish", but of course that will be reverted if our article on Gothic doesn't mention the phenomenon. Is there some sensible way to cover this here? --Doric Loon (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A brief statement after the 3rd para? --Pfold (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)