Talk:Gothic language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Gothic language as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French or Norwegian language Wikipedias.

Contents 1 Gutisk 2 Gothic Unicode 3 Codex Argenteus 4 Voluminous addition from French Wikipedia 5 Gothic language fragments history 6 Translation 7 Gothic Strong Verbs 8 Most closely resembling which modern language? 9 Passive voice and reduplication. 10 Icelandic 11 <q> 12 Gothic letter in the edit tools box 13 affinity 14 cleanup and review request 15 "Specifically by the Visigoths" 16 *gutiska razda?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] <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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] *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)