On Gothic wu-adjectives
Author(s): Magnús Snædal
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics, 106. Bd., 1. H. (1993), pp. 137-143
Published by: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40849086 .
Accessed: 14/03/2013 17:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On Gothic wiz-adjectives1)
1. Amongthe u-stemadjectivesin Gothic,thereis a suspicious
groupof words,endingin -wusin thenom.sg. masc.These are the
plaqus,manwus,and, perhaps,glaggwus*and
adjectivesaggwus*,1)
hnasqus*.
The reasonforthissuspicionis thatit is unlikelythatIE roots
endingin a labiovelaror a '^-diphthongtook the suffix-u-. Also,
1986:
thereis hardlyanyevidenceof a suffix-wu- (cf.Heidermanns
«-stems,
278-279,300), thoughscholarshaveused it to reconstruct
and it has thusgainedsomepopularity
(see Snaedal1982: 126-128,
131-144).
-u- and -wo- had been
thatthesuffixes
Hirt(1927:281) suggested
-u- was usedwhenthe
distribution':
i.e.
in a sortof a 'complimentary
rootendedin a stopor an /s/,but -wo- whentherootendedin a
in variousIE languages,
vowelor a liquid.Despitesomeexceptions
in theWGmclanguageswe findthatiftherootof a wa-sttmadjectiveends in a consonantit is either/I/ or /r/.The onlyexceptions
is almostthe
are OHG zeso,OE basuand hasu.In Olcel thesituation
in -gv or -kv,like
thestemsending,synchronically,
same,excluding
and myrkr.
tryggr
1.1 The classicalsolutionto the problemof the ^«-adjectivesis
in theinflexion
betweenthestemforms
thattherewas an alternation
*angu-in nom.sg. masc.and neut.,and *angwija-in the oblique
cases and the whole feminine
paradigm(Heidermanns1986: 286was
form
extendedby analogyto produce
Then
the
287).
*angwPGmc masc. *angwuz,neut. *angwu.Similarly,an alternation
*punu- ~ *punw- > *punn-producedPGmc *punnuz(Olcel
punnr,OHG dunni,etc.),and wouldthusbe analogousto thealternation*kinu-~ *kinw-> *kinn-thatled to Gothickinnus*.
*) This paperis to someextentbased on mycand. mag. thesis(Snaedal1982).
I thankmy colleague,Jón Gunnarsson,forvaluablecommentsand for helping
withimproving
myEnglish.
2) All unattestedformscarryan asterixbehindthem.
Hist.Sprachforsch.
106,137-143,ISSN 0935-3518
& Ruprecht
1993
© Vandenhoeck
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138
MagnusSnaedal
The /w/ (and the -(i)ja-) is commonlyheld to originatein the
feminine,initiatedby an inflexionlike Skt. masc. svãdus,fern,svadvï.
In the case of the ^«-adjectives, this /w/ also shows up in derivatives,e.g. -aggwjan*,aggwipa,gaaggwei; manwjan,manwipa*, so in
fromthe wa-stems,cf. -skadwjan*,
thisrespecttheyare not different
skadus
from
(< *skadwaz), balwjan, bandwjan*.
gaskadweins*,
But in the other«-stemadjectives,this/w/ does not show up,
norin derivatives,
neitherin theirinflexion
tulgipa,-tulge.g. tulgus,
jan; hardus,-hardjan*.Heidermanns(1986: 284-285) explainsthe
lack of /w/in tulgusby itsbeingdeletedaftera velarwhentheroot
/Kw/ appearsas a labio-velaras in aggcontained/u/, otherwise
ad hoc. Words
wus* and plaqus.This rule,however,is completely
like bistugqand skuggwa*showthatit mustbe limitedto «-stems,
and thereit explainsonlytheformof tulgus(and Heidermanns
hyFor thisruleto be accepted,it shouldat
potheticalform*murgu-).
least be certainthat tulgusis an original«-stem,but thatmaybe
doubted(cf.1.2).
Heidermanns
(1986: 287-288) further
explainsthe lack of/w/in
as an additionalmarker
Gothichardusetc.,due to itslossof function
of the femininealreadyin PGmc. The form *hardwitherefore
*
to hardus*in Gothic).But the
changedto hardi(and thenfurther
evidencesforPGmc *hardwïare week (cf. 1.2), and if the PGmc
of the
forms*angwuzand *punnuzare theproductsof a transfer
stemformto themasculineand neuter,it can be said that
feminine
So whydoes thatrule
thestemformwith/w/has beengeneralized.
not applyto *hardw-as well?If it existed,it wouldmostlikelybe
*hardwjanappearto be perfectly
preserved.Formslike *hardwus,
in
cf.
acceptable Gothic, bandwjan*,-skadwjan*.
the formsof the
of explaining
1.2 Actually,thewholeenterprise
«-adjectivesin Gothic-and the otherGermaniclanguagesforthat
masculine*-uz and feminine
matter
*-wi,is question-by assuming
able.
in -i or -wi is notattestedin Gothicforthe «-adNorn.sg. fern,
The
form,
paursus,seemsto indicatethat
jectives.
onlynom.sg. fern,
This is usuallyexplainedby
masculine.
fromthe
it was notdifferent
of masculineand feminine
by the indifference
analogy,influenced
value
of theformpaursusfor
But
the
substantives.
«-stem
the
among
can be questioned.It is attestedonlyonce, in the
thenom.sg. fern,
is so taihswowaspaursus(Lk 6:6). Now, itcan notbe
context:'handus
for *paursi,influenced
excludedthatpaursusis a misspelling
by
handus.So, the otherattestedformsof thisword,paursja(Lk6:8),
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On Gothic^«-adjectives
139
paursjana (Mk 11:20), may suggestthatthe nom. sg. masc. was paurseis^) (cf. wopeis*, based on wopi, wopjai). Incidentally,the same
applies to the formtulgus.It is also attestedonlyonce, in the context:
'tulgusgrunduwaddjus(2TimB 2:19). The otherattestedformis tulgjai (lCor 15:58). So it can not be excludedthat tulgusis a misspelling
for *tulgeis.4)
Althoughthiscan not be taken as substantiveevidence,it seriously
underminesthe bearing of these forms.Whole theoriesor explanations can not be based on them(cf. Snaedal 1982: 87-92).
Further,it seemsunnecessaryto assume an «-stemforthe cognates
of tulgusthatSzemerényi(1979: 109-110) foundin Aryan.His reconstructionwith *-us, IE *dlghus,appears to be based on Gothic tulgus
alone.
1.3 It is often maintained,most recentlyby Heidermanns (1986:
280, 296-297), that remnantsof the old -uzl-wï inflexioncan be
foundin Olcel, i. e. the cognateof Gothic aggwus,Oleei çngr,is said
to have a variantongr (from *angwuRand *angwija- respectively).
The same is claimed to be true of prçngr,gleggr,sneggr,and dekkr,
i. e. the variantsare said to be prengr,glçggr,snçggr,and dçkkr.As
alreadypointed out by Leijström(1934: 321-322), thesevariantsare
not found in Larsson (1891), and Noreen's (1970: 82) referencesfor
glçggrand snçggrare useless, because the manuscriptshe refersto are
youngerthan the mergerof /ρ/ and /&/ (cf. Snaedal 1982: 131-132,
135). In Holtsmark(1955) thesevariantsare not foundeither.
So theredo not seem to be any reliable examples of the variants,
and theirexistence,therefore,can not be said to support a -uz/wï
inflexionin PGmc. Those who claim thatthesevariantsexisted,must
show where theyare attested.
3) A pair like *paurseisand paursjanwould be comparableto thepair airzeis*
and airzjan*. Also, *paurseiscould be derivedfromthe zero-gradeof the verb
*pairsan.This would explainwhythe adj. has paurs- insteadof expectedpaurz-.
In Gothicthealternation
ofvoicedand voicelessspirants,causedbyVerner'slaw,
has (mostly)been levelledout in the strongverbalparadigmin favourof the
voicelessspirant(Krause 1968: 127). Interestingly,
in Lk6:6, 8 paursustranslates
Gk. ξηρός,and in Mk 11:20 theperf.part,έξηραμμένος,
butin Mk 3:1,3 thisperf.
withthepraet.part,eabaursans*of theverbzabairsan*.
part,is translated
4) It may be worthnotingthat the respectivetextsshow a relativelyhigh
of foreignnames and scribalvariants(cf.
frequencyof devianttranscriptions
D'Alquen 1974; 75, 142-144). NeitherMarchand(1973: 44-55) nor D'Alquen
for'ei' Butthatdoes not
(1974: 69-74, 135-140) mentionan exampleof u' written
thatsucha scribalerroris hiddenin theexamplementioned
excludethepossibility
above.
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Snaedal
Magnus
140
of theGothicwu2. But is theresomeotherpossibleexplanation
adjectives?
in Gothic,thereis onlyone
2.1 Amongthe «-stemsubstantives
It is usuallyconsidered
exampleof -wusinthenom.sing.,i.e.fairhus.
to Oleei fiçr,OE feorh,OSax, OHG ferah,all normal
to correspond
and nothingin theselanguagespointsto a former«-in(ze;)rt-stems,
flexion.
But is has notbeenexplainedhow Gothicfairhusdevelopedfrom
theformthatseemsto underlietheOlcel andWGmc
PGmc *ferhwa,
forms.At least it is obviousthatthe mostarchaicstateis not preshouldbecome*fairhin Gothic.If
servedin Gothic.PGmc *ferhwa
into the masculineit shouldbe *fairhs,5)
it was transformed
and,
theform*fairhus
overto the«-inflexion
ifitwas transferred
further,
appearsto be mostlikely,cf.skadus.
So, howdid Gothicfairhusarise?
PGmc
2.2 In Olcel we findthepluralnounfirar.It is an {/4-stem,
derivedfromthesamerootas fiçr,and has its cognates
*ferhwijõz,
OHG firihi.
in OE firas,OSax firihos,
in meaningbetweenOlcel firar'men and
Now the difference
Gothicfairhusworld'is byno meansgreaterthanthatbetweenOlcel
fiçr life and Gothicfairhus.Supposingthatfairhuscomes from
Olcel
i.e. the singularof the word underlying
PGmc *ferhwijaz,
the
of
nom.
the
to
is
it
-^«-adjectives,
by
sg.
firar,6) possible explain
least
in
as
-Kwus
Gothic
shows
PGmc
that
(at
*-Kwijaz
up
claiming
in nouns and adjectives),while PGmc *-Kwaz is represented
by
-Kws(cf.Snsedal1982:48-50). A closerlook showsthefollowing:7
PGmc *-kwaz >
*-hwaz >
*-gwaz >
*-kwijaz>
*-hwijaz>
*-gwijaz>
Gothic -qs E.g.: wraiqs*,saggqs*
None
-hs -riggws*,
triggws,
-gws Cglaggws)
saggws*,
plaqus,hnasqus*
-qus -hus fairhus
(*glaggwus)
aggwus*,
-gwus-
5) The cluster-hs is not attestedin Gothic,but seemsnot to be excluded,cf.
saht (Jh8: 57) and gasaht(Jh9: 37).
6) Stearns(1978: 135) suggeststhatthe CrimeanGothicwordJersman is the
butPGmc *ferhwijaz
same as Gothicfairhus.He derivesit fromPGmc *ferxwuz,
seemsto be evenbetter.
7) The change-ww- > -ggw~is ignoredin thetable.
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On Gothiczew-adjectives
141
There is no reason to doubt the nominativeformswraiqs*,saggqs*,
and saggws*,althoughthey are not attested.But it
unmanariggws*,
must be noted that saggws* inflectsas an /-stem,although it has
probablybeen an α-stemoriginally(Hirt 1932: 44).
This explanation predicts the nominativeform hnasqus* for the
attesteddat. pl. formhnasqjaim.It can not, on the otherhand, settle
the disputewhetherwe should assume *glaggwusor *glaggws.It may
be argued thatthe adv. glaggwopointsto *glaggws,because, if it was
an ija-stem, *glaggwjoseems to be more likely (cf. Heidermanns
1986: 281-282).8)
All this agrees prettywell with the correspondingadjectives in
WGmc: OHG engi,OE enge,hnesce(i/d-stems),and OHG ghu, OE
gleaw (wd-stems).In Olcel on the otherhand, both çngrand gleggr
inflectas wa-stems,but the formermust have been an d-stem,and
the latter an {/i-stem,originally.Therefore we must reconstruct
PGmc *angwaz and *angwijaz,*glawwaz and *glawwijaz.If Gothic
aggwus*,Olcel çngretc. go back to IE *anghu-,thenthis IE «-stem
has been transformedinto an a- or ija-stem in Germanic. Perhaps
this may be linked to the reorganizationof the adjectival inflexion,
i.e. introductionof the pronominalendings and the week inflexion.
For Olcel gleggrHeidermanns(1986: 300-302) suggestsa development *glawwaz > *glaggwaR> *glagguRthat led to an analogical
-j- in the oblique cases (i.e. *glaggwja-),influencedby the «-stems
(like *angUR,*angwja-). But his hypothesisis based on the dubious
variantsdiscussed in 1.3.
No ja- or ija-stem adjectives or substantivesin Gothic end in
-Kwjis or -Kweis. In fact -(C)weis is not attestedeither.So, therefore,the explanationproposed herecan be extendedto cover manwus
as well. But if we accept Heidermanns'(1986: 289-294) explanation
of its form,it would be secondaryin this class anyway.
3. Possible counterexampleswould be 2. p. sg. of verbs such as
bandwjan*. Accidentally,these formsare not attestedin the Gothic
Bible, but there is no reason to doubt that they were bandweis*,
-skadweis*,manweis* etc., cf. 3. p. sg. bandweip (Mt 26:73), ufarskadweid (Lkl:35), 2. p. pl. manweip (Mkl:3), etc. These forms
could be analogical, influencedby otherverbs of the same class, but
8) In fact,it maybe doubtedthatthisadjectivestillexistedin Wulfila'sGothic,
cf.the adverbsOSax tulgo,OE tulge,wherethecorresponding
adjectivesare not
preserved.
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MagnusSnaedal
142
is notnecessary.
The nounsand adjectives
couldhave
thatassumption
the
verbs
did
-wus
from
not.
*-wijaz,although
developed
Ifwe assumethatGothic*q'was /kw/it followsfromtheexplanaa ja-stem.Thenwe would
tionsuggestedthatplaqus was originally
in
nom.
form
derivedfrom*plaqisby
the
masc,
*plaqjis
sg.
expect
if
But
instead
became
*plaqis
plaqus, it could have inanalogy.9)
of aggwus*and hnasqus*.
fluencedthedevelopment
of Gothictulgusandpaur3.1 A finalnote:In 1.2 theauthenticity
sus as u-stemswas questioned.In additionto thedoubtsexpressed
theseare theonlyadjecthere,it is fairto add that,besidemanwus,
in -us and obliquecases with -ja-.
tivesshowingboth nominative
Suchformsare notattestedforaglus*,hardus,
qairrus,(and seipus*),
thatit is notabsolutely
certainthattheinflexso it mustbe admitted
ion was hardus,hardjana*etc. The same appliesto aggwus*and
like manwus.
plaqus thoughtheymostprobablyinflected
Magnus Snaedal
of Iceland
University
v/Suôurgotu
Árnagaròi
101 Reykjavik
ICELAND
References
D'Alquen, RichardJ.E. (1974): Gothicai and au. A Possible Solution.Mouton,
the Hague.
im germanischen
AdjekHeidermanns,Frank(1986): Zur primären
Wortbildung
99: 278-307.
Zeitschrift
fiirVergleichende
Sprachforschung
tivsystem.
III. Das Nomen. Carl WinGrammatik
Hirt, Hermann(1927): Indogermanische
ter'sUniversitätsbuchhandlung,
Heidelberg.
- (1932): Handbuchdes Urgermanischen
und Flexionslehre.
II: StammbildungsCarl WintersUniversitätsbuchhandlung,
Heidelberg.
ι de eldstenorskehandsknßer
tu ca. U)U.
Holtsmark,Anne (1955): Urdjorradet
Utgittav GammelnorskOrdboksverkved Anne Holtsmark.Det Norske Vii Oslo. I kommisjonhosJacobDybwad,Oslo.
denskaps-Akademi
3. ed. C.H.Beck, München.
Krause,Wollgang(1968): HandbuchdesGotischen.
Leksikaliskt
i de älstaislänskahandskrifierna.
Larsson,Ludvig(1891): Ordförradet
Lund.
ordnat.Ph. LindstedtsUniversitetsbokhandel,
ock grammatiskt
9) It is generallyassumedthatnom. sg. masc. oî ja-stemsis analogical.I.e.,
formslikeharjis,midjishavetakentheformof thegen.sg. insteadof theexpected
forms*haris,*midis,in accordancewith the i/d-stems,
nom./gen.sg. hairdeis,
wilpeis(cf. Krause 1968: 152).
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On Gothic ztw-adjectives
143
Leijström,Gunnar(1934): Delabialisationi isländska.Arkivförnordisk
filologi50:
307-334.
Marchand, James W. (1973): The Sounds and PhonemesofWulfila's Gothic. Mou-
ton,the Hague.
und altnorwegiGrammatik
I. Altisländische
Noreen,Adolf (1970): Altnordische
des UrnorunterBerücksichtigung
sche Grammatik(Laut- und Flexionslehre)
dischen.5. ed. Max Niemeyer,
Tübingen.
í germönskum
málum.Cand.
Snaedal,Magnus (1982): Um w-stofna
lysingaroròa
of Iceland,Reykjavik.
mag.Thesis,University
of the
Stearns,MacDonald, Jr.(1978): CrimeanGothic.Analysisand Etymology
Corpus.AnmaLibri,Saratoga.
fiir Vergleichende
Szemerényi,Oswald (1979): Germânica I (1-5). Zeitschrift
93: 103-125.
Sprachforschung
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions