Search Results

The Finnburg Fragment has been subject to manifold emendations in scholarly literature compared to the version that was printed by Hickes. In this article two passages will be closely examined. The traditional interpunction in lines 13–17 is refuted and so is, as a result, the interpretation that Sigeferð and Eaha is an apposition to drihtlice cempan; they are rather seen as the subject of following hyra sword getugon. This solves the problem of the different prepositions to and æt in the text, as well as the question to whom him relates. In lines 18–20 it is shown that the text rendered by Hickes, which was subjected to multiple changes in the editions, can be defended as correct. As a consequence, gūþhere cannot be understood as a personal name but must be an appellative ‘army’ and he is another instance of the rare nominative plural form of the pronoun.

In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik

The last part of the runic inscription on the recently found bracteate of Trollhättan iic reads wraitalaþo. It is proposed in this article that this sequence is best divided into wrait a laþo with the meaning ‘I wrote laþu in(to)’.

In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik

Abstract

While the word group of OHG ruof m. ‘roof’ is generally derived from PGmc. *χrōfa-, the Old Swedish forms written with <gh> show that the reconstructed form must be *χrōƀa-. PGmc. *χrōƀa- belongs together with the Slavic word group of OCS stropъ m. ‘roof’ but must be separated from the Celtic word group of mir. cró m. ‘enclosure’. The Germanic and Slavic forms lead back to a root PIE *k̂rep- ‘to cover’. From this root also Lat. creper ‘dark’ is derived.

In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik

Abstract

In the etymological literature there exist two divergent reconstructions for the word group around OHG sahar ‘sedge’: PGmc. *saχaza- and *saχ(a)ra-. Of these two the former is nearly exclusively found in Indo-European literature. The reconstruction *saχaza- cannot be correct. This is obvious because of the forms found in the Romanic languages, that were borrowed from Gothic, a language that did not undergo rhotazism. The neglect of literature from the field of Romance Studies is therefore accountable for the persistence of a false reconstruction in Indo-European studies.

In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik
This volume contains thirteen contributions on the origin of the feminine gender and its relation to the collective in the Indo-European parent language. The Indo-European daughter languages have got mostly a three-gender system, however the early attested Anatolian languages owned only two genders. In this respect, it is debatable whether the feminine gender is primary or arose secondarily from another morphological category. Due to special morphological and morphosyntactic phenomena it is also questionable whether the neuter plural of the individual languages continues an inflectional category or it was rather grammaticalized from an original word formation category collective. The authors suggest different approaches on the question of the relationship between feminine and collective.

In this article, new etymologies for two Old High German words are proposed. Old High German musina ‘bag, satchel’ is explained as a loanword from Slavonic (cf. Old Church Slavonic mošьna ‘bag’), Old High German orgina ‘bit’ as a loanword from Middle Latin *orginum ‘iron ring’.

Im Folgenden wird für zwei althochdeutsche Wörter, die bisher etymologisch unklar waren, jeweils eine neue Etymologie vorgeschlagen: Ahd. musina ‚Tasche, Ranzen‘ wird als ein Lehnwort aus dem Slawischen (vgl. aksl. mošьna ‚Tasche‘), ahd. orgina ‚Gebiss, Mundstück am Pferdezaum‘ als Lehnwort aus mlat. *orginum ‚Eisenring‘ erklärt.

This article is in German Language.

In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik
In: Studies on the Collective and Feminine in Indo-European from a Diachronic and Typological Perspective
In: Studies on the Collective and Feminine in Indo-European from a Diachronic and Typological Perspective