The Oxford Gothic Grammar (D. Gary Miller)

The Oxford Gothic Grammar
Frontispiece. An extract from the Bologna fragment. Bologna, Archivio della

Fabbriceria di San Petronio, Cart. 716/1, n°1 (olim Cart. 353, cam. n°3), f. 1r, l. 1–6.
With permission of the Archivio della Fabbriceria di San Petronio.
THE OX FOR D
GOTHIC
GR A M M A R
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
I The Goths and Gothic l
1.1 Brief history of the Goths 1

1.2 Crimean Gothic 4
1.3 Possible East Germanic runes 6
1.4 Wulfila and Gothic documents 7
1.5 The Gothi c corpus 8
1.6 The Bible translation 13
l.7 Lexical localization 15
1.8 Morphological and syntactic localization 17
1.9 The Greek Vorlage 18
2 Alphabet and phono1ogy 21
2.1 The Gothic alphabet 21

2.2 Specific letters 23
2.3 Phonological system 1: Consonants 26
2.4 Verners Law (VL) 30
2.5 1hurneysens Law (TL) 32
2.6 Phonological system 2: Vowels 32
2.7 Breaking 36
2.8 Did Wulfila have diphthongal ai, au? 39
2.9 The long : short contrast 42
2.10 Sonority and word forn1 44
2.11 Word breaks and syllabification 46
2.12 Duple timing and Sievers' Law 47
2.13 Diphthongs and related 49
2. 14 Verscharfung 53
viii Contents
3 The nominal system 58
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 Case functions 102
4.1 Adpositions and cases 102

4.2 Cases in Gothic 103
4.3 Agree1nent and concord 103
4.4 Subj ects with quirky case 106
4.5 Nom inative 107
4.6 Vocative 108
Contents ix
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
4.50 Double object verbs 161

4.5 1 Dative-accusative verbs 162
4.52 Accusative-dative verbs 165
4.53 Accusative-a.ccusative verbs 168
4.54 Accusative-genitive verbs 170
4.55 Passivization of double object verbs 172
5 The verbal syste1n 176
5.1 Introduction 176

5.2 The strong ver b 176
5.3 The thematic verb 178
5.4 Partial list of strong verbs 179
5.5 Strong class l 179
5.6 Strong class 2 180
5.1 2 Irregular and suppletive 190
5.13 The weak verb 191
5.14 Partial list of weak verbs 193
5. 15 Weak class 1 194
5. 16 Weak class 2 202
5.17 Weak class 3 203
5.19 Verb classes by prefix properties 206
5.20 Verbs of perception, feeling, and experience 207
5.2 1 Verbs of declaration and sound production 207
5.22 Primarily stative and modal verbs 208
5.23 The preterite present (PRT PRS) 209
5.24 Some functions of the preterite presents 212
5.25 The verb 'be' 214
5.26 Passive formations and constructions 215
5.27 Periphrastic passives 216
5.28 Infinitival passives and passive infinitives 219
5.29 Skulds and mahts 220
5.30 The verb 'will' 224
5.31 The dual 224
5.32 Tense and mood .1nisrnatches 228
Contents xi
6 P-words 232
6.1 P-words 232

6.2 Prepositions 233
6.3 af 233
6.4 afar 235
6.5 ana 236
6.6 and 237
6.7 at 238
6.8 bi 240
6.9 du 242
6.10 faur 245
6.11 faura 245
6.12 fram 246
6.13 in 248
6.14 mi_p 249
6.15 pairh 250
6.16 uf 251
6.17 ufar 252
6.18 und 253
6.19 us 254
6.20 wipra 255
6.21 Minor prepositions 256
6.22 alja 257
6.23 bisunjane 257
6.24 fairra 258
6.25 hindar 259
6.26 inu(h) 259
6.27 neh>a and neh> 259
6.28 ufarjaina 260
6.29 ufaro 261
6.30 undar, undaro 261
6.31 Phrasal prepositions 261
6.32 Prepositional adjacency 262
6.33 Surnmary of spatial P-functions 262
6.34 Verbal prefixes 263
6.35 Gothic and Greek prefix correspondences 265
6.36 The lexical categories of preverbs 266
6.37 Strings of preverbs 267
6.38 A purely structural prefix? 268
6.39 Optional and obligatory particle adjunction 269
6.40 Preposition incorporation 270
xii Contents
6.41 P-incorporation in Gothic 271

6.42 Incorporation of mip 273
6.43 P-incorporation and P-copy 274
6.44 Preverb gapping? 275
7 Compounding 280

7.2 Endocentric compounds 281
7.3 N + N endocentrics 282
7.4 N + N endocentrics in Gothic 285
7.5 Galiuga- compounds 290
7.6 A+ N, Num + N, and P + N endocentrics 291
7.7 N + A endocentrics 295
7.8 A + A and P + A endocentrics 296
7.9 V + N endocentrics 297
7.10 Exocentric and bahuvrihi compounds 298
7 .11 Nominal exocentric compounds 300
7.12 Adjectival exocentrics (bahuvrihis) 302
7. 13 Synthetic compounds 305
7. 14 Synthetic compounds and thematic roles 306
7. 15 Synthelic compounds with agentive *-an- and *-jan- 308
7.16 Compounds with participle as deverbal constituent 311
7. 17 Dvandva and identificational compou nds 311
7. 18 Possible archaic dvandvas 312
7.19 Identificational!appositional compounds 313
7.20 Grammaticalization of compounding heads as suffixes 314
7.21 -laus 'free frorn, deprived of' 315
7.22 -leiks '(a)like, -ly' 316
7.23 The composition vowel 319
7.24 Conclusion 322
8 Nominal derivation 323

8.2 PIE noun types 323
8.3 Gothic and pre-Gothic noun formation 324
8.4 -assus (M -u-) 325
8.5 -ei (F -n-) 326
8.6 Examples of "-in- (F -11-) across Germanic 328
8.7 -ij,a (F -o-) 329
8.8 Competition between -ei and -ipa 332
8.9 -ps I -ds I -ts I -ss (F -i-) 334
8.10 -pus I -dus I -tus (M -u-) 337
Contents xiii
8.11 -opus I -odus (M -u-) 339

8.12 -dups (F -i-) 339
8.13 -ns (ADT and P -i-) 340
8.14 -eins (F -(in)i-) 342
8.15 -ains, -ons (F -(ain)i-, -(on)i-) 344
8.16 -ma (M -n-), -mo (P, N -n- ) 345
8.17 -ubni - -ufni I -muni (N -ja-, F -jo-) 347
8.18 -i (N -ja-) 349
8.19 History of Gothic -i 352
8.20 -is (N -a-) 354
8.21 -a (-an-), -o (N -in/ on-, F -on-) 355
8.22 History of the -n- stems 357
8.23 -ja (-jan-) 359
8.24 -jo (-jon- ) 360
8.25 -ing-1-ung- (M -a-) and -J-ing- 361
8.26 -areis 362
Primarily adjectival suffixes 365
8.27 -ps, -ds, -ts (ADJ -a-) 365
8.28 -ns (ADJ/M -a- ), -n (N -a-) 367
8.29 -ans, -ins (ADJ/ M -a-) 368
8.30 -eins (ADJ -a-) 369
8.3 1 -a/i/ ug- (-a/ i/ uh-) (ADJ -a-) 371
8.32 -(a!u)ls (ADJ/M -a-), -l (N -a-) 374
8.33 -(i)la (M -n-), -(i)lo (F -n-) 375
8.34 -isks (ADJ -a-), -iska (ADJ -o-) 376
8.35 Conclusion 378
9 Verbal and sentential syntax: 379
9.1 Syntactic introduction 379

9.2 Subject pronouns and null subjects 381
9.3 Anaphoric structures 382
9.4 Reflexives with silba 384
9.5 Binding and intervening variables 386
9.6 The bindiHg of sein- 388
9.7 Apparent exceptions to sein- binding 390
9 .8 Reciprocals 392
9.9 Pseudo-reflexives and passive replacements 393
9.10 Anticausatives 394
9.11 Lexical and grammatical aspect 396
9.12 Verbal prefixes in Gothic 397
9.13 Telicity and other properties ofga- 399
9.14 Syntactic and discourseJunctions of ga- 401
xiv Contents
9. 15 The nonpast (inco1n pletive) participle 403

9.1 6 Other PrP structures 404
9 .17 Absolute constructions 407
9. 18 Historical status of the absolute structures 408
9.19 Infinitives 409
9.20 Infinitives with modal verbs 411
9.21 Subject control 412
9.22 Object control 414
9.23 Infinitival purposives 415
9.24 Purposives with du 416
9.25 Nominal properties of the Gothic infinitive 417
9.26 Accusative and participle or adjective 419
9.27 Accusative and infinit ive 421
9.28 AI and verbs of volition 423
9.29 Examples of Al 424
9.30 Al with qipan 426
9.31 Diachrony and synchrony of AI 427
9.32 Finite subordin ation 429
9.33 Ei as a residual coordinating conjunction 431
9.34 Ei as a relativizin g complementizer 432
9.35 Relative adverbials and temporal conjunctions 434
9.36 Core relatives 436
9.37 Niood in relative clauses 438
9.38 Free relatives 440
9.39 Relatives and correlatives 442
9.40 Simple and compound compiementizers 444
9.41 Complements of reflective verbs 445
9.42 The dependent optative 446
9.43 Verbs of inquiry, mood shift, and tense harmony 448
9.44 Mood shift with epistemic verbs 449
9.45 Mood shift with negation 450
9.46 Final p ur pose clauses 451
9.47 Result (consecutive) clauses 454
9.48 Conditional clauses 455
9.49 Conditionals with the indicative 456
9.50 Hypothetical and counter/actual conditionals 457
9.5 1 Nfixed conditionals 458
9.52 Obligatory optative 459
9.53 1 h e indep endent optative 461
9.54 Doubt 461
9.55 Mood and modality reduction 462
9.56 Boulomaic modalities 464
9.57 Reinforcing mode 465
9.58 Eventuality and potentiality 466
Contents xv
10 Gothic texts 469
10.1 Matthew 7:12-24 469

10.2 Matthew 7:25-27 474
10.3 Matthew 5:27-28 475
10.4 Matth ew 6:9-13 (The Lord's Prayer ) 476
10.5 Parable of the Sower and the Seed (Mark 4: 1-20) 478
10.6 Landsale deed from Arezzo (538] 481
10.7 Debt-settlement deed from Naples, Signature 2 [551] 482
10.8 Skeireins 4.2. 16-4.3.24 483
10.9 Excerpts from the Bologna fragme nt 485
10.10 folio 1 recto (BI lr), lines 1- 26 485
10.11 folio 1 verso (Bl 1v) 490
10.12 folio 2 verso (Bl 2v), lines 7- 14 494
11 Linearization and typology 497
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
Appendix: Supplemental information 523
References 567
Index of Gothic Words 643
Index of Names and Places 684
Index of Subjects 687
PR EFACE
Purpose and intended audience

To make this work accessible to students with little background in Germanic and
none in Latin or Greek, even the simplest words are translated or provided with dis-
cussion. Since no knowledge of Greek is presupposed, all words are transliterated.
Linguistic terminology is kept to a minimum and explained on its first occurrence
or in a cross-referenced section. A certain amount of basic linguistics, especially phonet-
ics, is presupposed. For those seeking additional discussion of the linguistic concepts,
references are provided, in particular to my technical treatise on language change
(Miller 2010).
Indo-European reconstructions are provided for students who are interested or
better equipped in terms of background. As students become more advanced in their
study of Germanic and Indo-European, they will benefit more from this grammar.
The amount of work written about Gothic is truly staggering. There is no other
dead language with so small a corpus that has attracted as much attention. The numer-
ous references provide advanced students and professionals with an important
research tool.
The fact that Greek is not taken for granted but Indo-European is may appear to be
a contradiction. However, as already mentioned, the Indo-European component can
be ignored by students without that knowledge at the outset. But since many com-
parisons are—by necessity—made with the Greek and Latin texts, those cannot be
ignored at any stage and for this reason translations are provided.
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.
The study of Gothic

The edition of the Gothic texts is that of Streitberg (1919), seriously dated in many
respects. Very few corrections of the errors have been made due to poor readings of
the manuscripts, most of which are palimpsests (Gothic texts partially scraped away
to reuse the parchment for Latin texts), about 12% of which are not legible. The
seventh edition by Piergiuseppe Scardigli (2000) contains a second supplement
with texts discovered since 1919: tabella Hungarica, Gotica Parisina, and the Speyer
fragment (§1.5).
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
Barring inevitable misreadings, early editions of enduring value include Gabelentz

& Löbe (1848), Maßmann (1834, 1857), Uppström (1854), which preserves the manu-
script punctuation,2 and Bernhardt (1875), which includes a synoptic restitution of
the Greek text.
The first edition of the codex Argenteus (§1.5) by Franciscus Junius in 1665 is
remarkable for the printing of the entire Gothic text in a specially cut Gothic type,
Pica Gothica. Junius also put the books in the modern order Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John (§1.9), and divided the text into chapters and verses while getting rid of the
Eusebian canon (§1.5) and system of sections (Munkhammar 2017: 40, w. lit).
Gothic passages in the current grammar are cited from Snædal (2013a: Vol. 1),
which includes a few more corrections, but a new edition is needed (Falluomini
2009). One is in preparation by Carla Falluomini, using modern scientific techniques
to re-examine the manuscripts and texts.
There are many useful resources for the study of the Gothic language. The classic
grammar is by Gabelentz & Löbe (1846). Early historical treatments include Meyer
(1869), Kluge (1911), and Jellinek (1926); more recent: Krahe & Seebold (1967), Krahe
& Meid (1967), Pudić (1971), Ramat (1981), Jasanoff (2004), Ringe (2006, 2017), Rousseau
(2012, 2016). For derivation, see Schubert (1968), Casaretto (2004), and, for derivation
and inflection classes, Thöny (2013).
Handbooks of Gothic abound: Munch (1848), Douse (1886), Balg (1883 [phonology
and morphology], 1887–89 [667-page glossary], 1891 [edition and syntax]), Leyen
(1908), Streitberg (1920), Jellinek (1926), Kieckers (1960 [1928]), Van Hamel (1931),
Wright (1954), Mossé (1956), Guxman (1958), Hempel (1962), W. Krause (1968), Braune
& Ebbinghaus (1981), Binnig (1999), Braune & Heidermanns (2004), Piras (2007),
Rousseau (2012), Kotin (2012), Feuillet (2014), Schuhmann (forthcoming). Useful
textbooks include Bennett (1980/1999), Lambdin (2006), De Vaan (2007a) [in Dutch],
Rauch (2011), and Goering & Jones (forthcoming).
Other useful aids are Skeat’s glossary (1868), Regan’s dictionary (1974) [many errors],
etymological dictionaries by Balg (1887–89), Holthausen (1934), Feist-Lehmann
(GED) (1986), Devlamminck & Jucquois (1977) [incomplete], and Găleșanu (2002),
Tollenaere & Jones’ word index (1976), Anreiter’s reverse word list (1987) [no glosses],
Köbler’s list of translation correspondences between Gothic and Latin (1972) and
especially his comprehensive Wörterbuch (1989) with German and English glosses
(http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c30310/ gotwbhin.html). Snædal’s concordance (2013a)
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
is indispensable. See also his Academia.eduprofile. The searchable Wulfila Project

(http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/) has Snædal’s corrections to Streitberg’s text and valu-
able links. The PROIEL parallel parsed corpus of early New Testament translations,
including Gothic, requires caution.
Also crucial are the bibliographies by Mossé (1950, 1953, [& Marchand] 1957). Van
de Velde (1966) overviews the early history of research, especially in the Netherlands.
ACK NOW LEDGMENTS
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
for extremely careful copy-editing. Ela Kotkowska forced me to dig up references I

had forgotten I have.
As always, my main debt is to my wife of (now over) fifty years and constant com-
panion, Judith, to whom this book is dedicated. Without her encouragement and sup-
port, none of this would have come to fruition.
Florissant, CO
16 September 2018
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:
[c6] sixth century

[c61] first half of c6
[c62] second half of c6
[c4b] beginning of the 4th century
[c53] last third of the 5th century
[c2e] end of c2
[c2m] middle of c2
[c3/4] c3 or c4 (uncertain)
[c3e/4b] same but with narrower range
[110–240] 110 ce to 240 ce
[240–110] 240 bce to 110 bce
[ca. 369] around 369
[a350] before (ante) 350
[p350] after (post) 350
[n.d.] no date available
For early events, approximate dating is frequently all that is available.
Citation of Gothic forms

Nonpast tense and indicative mood are treated as defaults. This means that, in glosses
for instance, nonpast tense and indicative mood are not specified. If optative, infini-
tive, imperative, or preterite is not indicated, the form will be assumed to be nonpast
indicative.
This work observes the useful convention of a following asterisk for an unattested
citation form (Banta 1980; Suzuki 1986: xii, 1989: xviii). Earlier authors (e.g. Jellinek
1926) used this convention inconsistently. A preceding asterisk indicates (i) Gothic
xxiv Dating and other conventions
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’].
Based on infrared photographs made in 1960, Ebbinghaus (1975) read naubaimbar.

Carla Falluomini (email of 12 March 2017) examined the manuscript and found the
reading very uncertain. The only certain letters are . . . bainb . . . (n is more likely than m),
and “a gloss to fruma jiuleis is not possible in my opinion: the position of the word in
the page is against this idea.”
Citation of Indo-European roots

The general knowledge of Indo-European assumed here can be found in any of the
handbooks. Especially useful for the beginner is Benjamin Fortson’s Indo-European
Language and Culture (2010).
Because of its ready accessibility, Indo-European roots in the present work are often
cited as in Watkins (2000), The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots
(AHDR). Generally, a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) form is also provided, sometimes
from AHDR and sometimes from other sources, such as Rix et al. (2001), Lexikon der
indogermanischen Verben (LIV), Wodtko et al. (2008), Nomina im indogermanischen
Lexikon (NIL), Kroonen (2013), Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (EDPG),
or Dunkel (2014), Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme
(LIPP).
Indo-European roots in an entry are sometimes cited in brackets, the first from
AHDR (unspecified), the second (if present) from another source (LIV, EDPG, etc.),
e.g. Goth. air ‘early’ [*ayer- / *h2ei-(e)r- ‘day, morning’]. The information is different:
xxvi Dating and other conventions
*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:
* —reconstructed (of earlier or proto-forms); ill-formed (of sentences/words)

—after a Gothic word: the word is attested but not in the cited form
** 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
† —with a year, e.g. [†450] = died (of people)

—with a word, e.g. †meritory = obsolete
—also used of glosses and readings, e.g. †gadikis (now read gadigis)
[] —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
AG Altnordische Grammatik, Vol. 1: Altisländische und altnorwegische

Grammatik unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. By Adolf
Gotthard Noreen. 4th edn. Halle: Niemeyer (1923)
AHDR The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots. Ed. Calvert
Watkins. 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (2000)
AJP The American Journal of Philology
AJGLL American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures
ASPK Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge. By D. Gary Miller.
Amsterdam: Benjamins (1994)
BR Althochdeutsche Grammatik, Vol. 1: Laut- und Formenlehre. By
Wilhelm Braune and Ingo Reiffenstein. 15th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer
(2004)
BSL Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris
CGG A Comparative Germanic Grammar. By Eduard Prokosch. Baltimore:
Linguistic Society of America (1939). (Repr. 1966)
CHEL Cambridge History of the English Language. Ed. Richard M. Hogg.
5 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1992–9)
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin: De Gruyter
Cod. Lindisf. Evangeliorum Quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis. Ed. T. D. Kendrick,
T. J. Brown, R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, H. Roosen-Runge, Alan S. C. Ross,
E. G. Stanley, and A. E. A. Werner. 2 vols. Vol 1: Musei Britannici
codex cottonianus Nero D.IV, permissione musei Britannici totius
codicis similitudo folii 1–259 (1956). Vol. 2: Commentariorum libri
duo quorum usus de textu evangeliorum latino et codicis ornatione,
alter de glossa anglo-saxonica (1960). Olten and Lausanne: UrsGraf;
New York: Duschnes
DELG Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. 4 vols. By Pierre
Chantraine. Paris: Klincksieck (1968–80)
DELL Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. 2 vols. By Alfred Ernout
& Antoine Meillet. 3rd edn. Paris: Klincksieck (1951)
EbgW Die Erweiterung des bibelgotischen Wortschatzes mit Hilfe der
Methoden der Wortbildungslehre. By Hans-Jürgen Schubert. Munich:
Hueber (1968)
EDG Etymological Dictionary of Greek. By Robert S. P. Beekes. Leiden: Brill
(2010)
xxx Bibliographical abbreviations
EDHIL Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. By Alwin

Kloekhorst. Leiden: Brill (2008)
EDPC Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. By Ranko Matasović. Leiden:
Brill (2009)
EDPG Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. By Guus Kroonen.
Leiden: Brill (2013)
EDL Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.
By Michiel de Vaan. Leiden: Brill (2008)
EIE External Influences on English. By D. Gary Miller. Oxford: Oxford
University Press (2012)
EWAia Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. By Manfred
Mayrhofer. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter (1986–2001).
EWDS Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. By Friedrich Kluge
& Elmar Seebold. 24th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter (2002)
F Falluomini (2014)
FT Finazzi and Tornaghi (2013)
GCS Gotische Casus-Syntaxis. By Marten Jan van der Meer. Leiden: Brill
(1901)
GE Gotisches Elementarbuch. By Wilhelm A. Streitberg. 5th & 6th edns.
Heidelberg: Winter (1920)
GED A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Based on the 3rd edn of
Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Gothischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist.
By Winfred P. Lehmann. Leiden: Brill (1986)
GG Gotische Grammatik. By Wilhelm Braune & Frank Heidermanns.
Tübingen: Niemeyer (2004)
GGS Geschichte der gotischen Sprache. By Max Hermann Jellinek. Berlin:
De Gruyter (1926)
GHL A Grammar of the Hittite Language: Part 1, Reference Grammar.
By Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., & H. Craig Melchert. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns (2008)
GK Germanische Kausativbildung: Die deverbalen jan-Verben im
Gotischen. By Luisa García García. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht (2005)
GL Grammatici Latini. Ed. Henricius [Heinrich] Keil. 8 vols. Leipzig:
Teubner (1857). (Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1961.)
GLAC Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference
GPA Etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen Primäradjektive.
By Frank M. Heidermanns. Berlin: De Gruyter (1993)
GrGS Grammatik der gothischen Sprache (1846). By Hans Conon von der
Gabelentz & Julius Löbe <Loebe>. [q.v. in References]
GrOE A Grammar of Old English. Vol. 2: Morphology. By Richard M. Hogg
& Robert D. Fulk. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (2011)
Bibliographical abbreviations xxxi
GS Die gothische Sprache. By Leo Meyer. Berlin: Weidmann (1869)

HGE A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. By Vladimir E. Orel. Leiden:
Brill (2003)
HLFL Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. By
Gerhard Meiser. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
(1998)
HS/HL Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics
IBS Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck
IEL Indo-European Linguistics. By Michael Meier-Brügger, with Matthias
Fritz and Manfred Mayrhofer. Tr. Charles Gertmenian. Berlin: De
Gruyter (2003)
IF Indogermanische Forschungen
IGBulg Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae: https://epigraphy.packhum.
org/regions/12
IS Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. By Michael Meier-Brügger.
9th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter (2010)
IstMorph Istoričeskaja Morphologija nemeckogo jazyka: Posobie dlja studentov
pedagogičeskikh institutov. By Lev Rafailovič Zinder and Tat’jana
Viktorovna Stroeva. Leningrad: Prosveščenie (1968)
JEGP The Journal of English and Germanic Philology
JIES The Journal of Indo-European Studies
KM Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, Vol. 3: Wortbildungslehre. By Hans
Krahe & Wolfgang Meid. Berlin: De Gruyter (1967)
Kr [+runic inscr. #] Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. Ed. Wolfgang Krause.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (1937; 2nd edn, 1966). All
references are to the 2nd edn unless Kr1 is specified
KRP Kiel Rune Project
KZ (Kuhn’s) Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung
LCG Evidence for language contact in Gothic. By Antje Casaretto.
NOWELE 58/59: 217–37 (2010)
LCLT Language Change and Linguistic Theory. By D. Gary Miller. 2 vols.
Oxford: Oxford University Press (2010)
LG Lateinische Grammatik. By Manu Leumann, Johann Baptist
Hofmann, & Anton Szantyr. 3 vols. Munich: Beck (1977). Vol. 1:
Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. By M. Leumann (1977); Vol. 2:
Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. By J. B. Hofmann. Rev. A. Szantyr
(1965)
Lg. Language
LHE From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: A Linguistic History of
English, Vol. 1. By Donald Ringe. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(2006)
xxxii Bibliographical abbreviations
LHE2 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: A Linguistic History of

English, Vol. 1. By Donald Ringe. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University
Press (2017)
LIPP Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominal-stämme.
2 vols. By George Eugene Dunkel. Heidelberg: Winter (2014)
LIV Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre
Primärstamm-bildungen. Ed. Helmut Rix et al. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden:
Reichert (2001)
LSDE Latin suffixal derivatives in English and their Indo-European ancestry.
By D. Gary Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2006; Repr. with
corrections, 2012)
MED Middle English Dictionary. Ed. Hans Kurath, Sherman M. Kuhn,
J. Reidy, Robert E. Lewis, et al. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press (1952–2001). The online MED is available at http://ets.umdl.
umich.edu/m/med/
MITWPL MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Dept. of Linguistics and
Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA
MPIE The morphology of Proto-Indo-European. By Jesse Lundquist &
Anthony D. Yates. In Klein et al. (2017)
MSS Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
MU Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der
indogermanischen Sprachen, Part 2. By Hermann Osthoff and Karl
Brugman[n]. Leipzig: Hirzel (1879)
MUN Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens. By Alfred
Bammesberger. Heidelberg: Winter (1990a)
MV Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. By Antoine
Meillet & Joseph Vendryes. 2nd edn. Paris: Champion (1948).
(Repr. 1966.)
NCG Nominal compounds in Germanic. By Charles T. Carr. London:
Oxford University Press (1939)
NIL Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Ed. Dagmar S. Wodtko, Britta
Irslinger, & Carolin Schneider. Heidelberg: Winter (2008)
NOWELE North-Western European Language Evolution. Odense: Odense
University Press
NWG Nominale Wortbildung der gotischen Sprache. Die Derivation der
Substantive. By Antje Casaretto. Heidelberg: Winter (2004)
OED The Oxford English Dictionary online, 2nd edn (1989) and 3rd edn
(in progress). Ed. John A. Simpson. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(2000–). http://oed.com/
ORI [+runic inscr. #] A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. By
Elmer H. Antonsen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (1975)
Bibliographical abbreviations xxxiii
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
bce Before Common Era

bk. book
Bl Bologna fragment
Bon. (codex) Bononiensis
Brix. (codex) Brixianus
Byz. Byzantine (Greek); the Byzantine main text
xxxvi General abbreviations
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
f feminine (in glosses)

f. following (one page)
f. folio (in MS reference)
Far. Faroese
fem feminine
ff. following (two pages)
fin./fin finite
fl. floruit / flourished
FP Functional Phrase
Fr. French
fr. fragment
freq frequent
ftn. footnote
fut future
FWO free word order
xxxviii General abbreviations
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
ibid. in the same work

Ice. Icelandic
id. the same (meaning)
IE Indo-European
i.e. id est, that is
impf imperfect
impfctv imperfective
imps impersonal
impv imperative
inch inchoative
incl. including
ind indicative
indf indefinite
individ individual
inf infinitive
inscr. inscription
instr instrumental
interrog interrogative
IO indirect object
irreg irregular
Ital. Italian
it-dur iterative-durative
iter iterative
General abbreviations xxxix
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
M Middle (Greek etc.)

m masculine (in glosses)
masc masculine
MDu Middle Dutch
medpass mediopassive
Merc. Mercian
MHG Middle High German
mid middle (voice)
Mk Mark
ML Medieval Latin
MLG Middle Low German
Mn Modern (Greek, French, etc.)
MS manuscript
MSS manuscripts
Mt Matthew
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)
O Old (with language names)

O object (with S, V, etc.)
obj object
obl oblique (case(s))
OCS Old Church Slav(on)ic
ODan Old Danish
ODu Old Dutch
OE Old English
OF Old Frisian
OFar. Old Faroese
OFr. Old French
OHG Old High German
OIr. Old Irish
OL Old Latin
OLF Old Low Franconian
OLG Old Low German
ON Old Norse
ONorth. Old Northumbrian
OP Old Persian
OPhryg. Old Phrygian
OPr Old Prussian
OProv. Old Provençal
opt optative
orig. original(ly)
OS Old Saxon
OSL open syllable lengthening
OSw Old Swedish
General abbreviations xli
OT Old Testament
OV object-verb
P phrase (after N, V, etc.)

P preposition
P-word preposition, particle, prefix
p post ‘after’ (in dates)
p. page
PAP past active participle
pap. papyrus
pass passive
p.c. personal correspondence
perf perfect(ive)
Pers. Persian
pf perfect (in glosses)
pfctv perfective
PGmc. Proto-Germanic
Phil Philippians
Philem Philemon
phps. perhaps
PIE Proto-Indo-European
pl plural
pl tant plurale tantum (plural only)
plupf pluperfect
Poss/poss possessive
PP prepositional phrase
PP preterite participle
pp. pages
PPP past passive participle
pr present (with sbj etc.)
prfx prefix
prep. preparation
pres present
pret preterite
prn pronoun, pronominal
prob probably
prog progressive
PrP present participle
prt participle; participial mood
xlii General abbreviations
pst past
Ptc/ptc particle
PWA predicative weak adjective
Q question particle (in glosses)

Q quantifier
q.v. quod vide (‘which see’)
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)
S subject (with V, O, etc.)

S in Bible verses (e.g. Mk 16:20S), Speyer fragment
sbj subjunctive
sc. scilicet ‘namely’
sc small clause
sg singular
SH sonority hierarchy
Sk Skeireins
Skt. Sanskrit
SL Sievers’ Law
sme someone
sthg something
str strong verb
subj subject
superl superlative
suppl suppletive
s.v. sub vide ‘see under’
Sw. Swedish
Thess Thessalonians
theta thematic (role)
General abbreviations xliii
Tim Timothy
Tit Titus
TL Thurneysen’s Law
Toch. Tocharian
tr transitive
tr. translator; translated by
V vowel (phonological contexts)

V verb (with S, O, etc.)
Vfin finite verb
Vinf infinitive
V1 verb first
V2 verb second
v. vide ‘see’
v. verso (of text foliae)
vcd voiced
vcl voiceless
Ved. Vedic
Vet. Lat. Vetus Latina
viz. videlicet ‘namely’
VL Verner’s Law
VL + date Vetus Latina, ed. Jülicher et al. (1963–76)
VL + # Vetus Latina MS number
VL Vulgar Latin
v.l. varia lectio (‘variant reading’)
v.ll. variant readings
VO verb-object
voc vocative
vol(s). volume(s)
VP verb phrase
vs. verse (in text references)
vs. versus
Vulg. Vulgate
W west
wk weak
WS West Saxon dialect (OE)
w. lit with literature (references)
XP phrase of any lexical-syntactic category

CH APTER 1
The Goths and Gothic
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.
1.1 Brief history of the Goths

Die Geschichte der Goten,
eine Diskussion ohne Ende
(Hachmann 1970: 1)
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’).
The Oxford Gothic Grammar. First edition. D. Gary Miller

© D. Gary Miller 2019. First published in 2019 by Oxford University Press
2 The Goths and Gothic
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).
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).
1.2 Crimean Gothic

Crimean Gothic has eighty-six entries (101 lexical items) elicited in 1560/62 by Flemish
diplomat Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq [1522–92] from two Crimeans, one a Greek, the
other possibly a Crimean Goth but more competent in Greek.7 De Busbecq’s lists
appear in his ‘Fourth Turkish Letter’ [1562] written in Latin. He himself seems to have
been involved in its publication in Paris in 1589 (see Stiles 2005, w. lit).
In the following list of Crimean words of Germanic origin, bracketed forms are
emendations by Schröder (1910), Stearns (1978), and others: broe [= broet] ‘bread’, plut
‘blood’ (Goth. bloþ), stul ‘seat’ (Goth. stols), hus ‘house’ (Goth. -hūs), vvingart ‘vine’
(Lat. vītis vs. Goth. weinagards* ‘vineyard’), reghen (which is straight Flemish: Rob
Howell, p.c.) ‘rain’ (Goth. rign), bruder ‘brother’ (Goth. broþar), schuuester ‘sister’
(Goth. swistar), alt ‘old’ (cf. Goth. alþeis ‘old’), vvintch [= vvintsch] ‘wind’ (cf. Goth.
winds), siluir ‘silver’ (Goth. silubr), goltz ‘gold’ (Goth. gulþ*), salt ‘salt’ (Goth. salt),
sune ‘sun’ (Goth. sauil, sunno), mine ‘moon’ (Goth. mena Mk 13:24), tag ‘day’ (Goth.
dags), oeghene ‘eyes’ (Goth. augona), bars ‘beard’ [=*bards? Ganina, p. 114], handa
‘hand’ (Goth. handus), boga ‘bow’ (OE boga; cf. Goth. biugan* ‘bend’), miera ‘ant’ (cf.
ON maurr), rinck / ringo ‘ring’ (cf. ON hringr), brunna ‘fountain’ (Goth. brunna),
vvaghen ‘wagon’, apel ‘apple’ (Gmc. *apla- < PIE *h2ab-ol- ‘(the) juicy’ < ‘watery’? [Neri
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.
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.).
1.3 Possible East Germanic runes

The question of Gothic runes is often addressed. Some nine (mostly uninterpretable)
inscriptions with fewer than 20 words covering a period of 400 years have been claimed
to be East Germanic (see Nedoma 2010: 9). In addition to ranja on a spearhead (ORI 7:
Dahmsdorf [201–50]) ‘router’ (§8.23), two possibilities are mentioned here.
An early spearhead (Kr 33, ORI 96) from Kowel, West Ukraine [210–90] (KRP), has
been thought to be Gothic or, more generally, East Germanic. The inscription in (1) is
retrograde, and the d- letter would have a unique box-form (e.g. Mel’nikova 2001: 90f.;
Nedoma 2010: 14).
(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.
1.4 Wulfila and Gothic documents

Probably of Anatolian parents enslaved by Goths in Western Cappadocia, Wulfila
lived ca. 307/311–ca. 383 (Streitberg 1897; Stutz 1972: 388; Metzger 1977: 384f.).8 What
little is known about him is from his student and later bishop of Durostorum,
Auxentius, and the fifth-century Church historians Philostorgios of Cappadocia,
Socrates Scholasticus (Constantinople), and Sozomen (Palestine). His name was
variously rendered Ulfila (Auxentius), Ourphílās (Photius, Philostorgios), Oulphílās
(Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret), Vulphilas (Cassiodorus), Vulfila (Jordanes), etc.
Spellings from Gothic territories, especially Vu- associated with Ravenna and Gulfilas
in Isidor of Seville point to Goth. Wulfila ‘little wolf ’ (Klein 1952; cf. Weinhold 1870:
3; GGS 9; Schäferdiek 1990a; Ebbinghaus 1991a; GED 375).
Constantine sanctioned Christianity in 325. Between 337 and 341 (Sivan 1996:
381ff.; Barnes 1990 argued for 336), Wulfila was consecrated bishop of the Visigoths
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).
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.).
1.5 The Gothic corpus

The entire extant Gothic corpus is preserved in nine manuscripts. Seven transmit
parts of the Bible translation. Prior to the discovery of the Bologna fragment, the cor-
pus contained fewer than 70,000 words (Snædal 2009a). Excluding inflectionally
related forms and 333 foreign names, the word total is 3204, built on some 1500 roots.
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/.
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.
C (2 leaves) has fragments of Matthew 25:38–46, 26:1–3, 65–75, 27:1, overlapping on

26:70–27:1 with cod. Arg. but containing minor textual differences.
D (3 leaves) contains fragments of Nehemiah 5:13–18, 6:14–7:3, 7:13–45. Despite the
demonstration by Kauffmann (1897) that the text is in fact Nehemiah, and the com-
mentary by Langner (1903), Landau (2011) claims the last portion is Ezra 2:9–42, but
did not take the Lucianic Nehemiah into account (Snædal & Petersen 2012).12 While
some Lucianic readings of Ezra are the same as in the Lucianic Nehemiah, there are
readings in Nehemiah that match the Gothic against Ezra, and the leaf in question
(209/210) perfectly adjoins to leaf 461/462 of Nehemiah (Heinzle 2016).
This is the only portion of the Old Testament preserved in Gothic (with notable
differences in style and the treatment of Biblical names), although a number of OT
passages are preserved in references and citations (Maßmann 1857; Ohrloff 1876;
Mühlau 1904), and now also in the Bologna fragment (below), with citations from
Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Psalms, and Daniel (Falluomini 2014).13
E (8 leaves) contains pages of Skeireins.
Skeireins (aíwaggeljons þairh Iohannen) ‘Explication (of the Gospel according to
John)’ was so-named by Maßmann (1834), its first editor. Of the eight parchment
leaves (sixteen pages), 1, 2, 5–7 are in cod. Ambr. E, and 3, 4, 8 in cod. Vaticanus
Latinus 5750 (folia 57–62), all by the same scribe, with meticulous corrections by a
second (Bennett 1960: 26f.). The original length, if the text was completed, is
unknown. The extant version contains commentary on 37 Biblical verses, 23 of which
occur in the extant Wulfilian text with only six precise matches (Falluomini 2016a).
A Greek source is likely because of its Classical stylistic features (McKnight 1897b;
Bennett 1960: 41f.; Friedrichsen 1961a). Friedrichsen (1961b, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1970)
attempts to reconstruct the original by Wulfila’s contemporary, Theodore, bishop of
Heraclea (cf. Snædal 2015a), who wrote commentaries on John and Matthew. But a
match of seven lines does not prove that Skeireins was translated in its entirety
(Falluomini 2016a: 278). Schäferdiek (1981) argues that theologically Skeireins must
date to the second quarter of c4. Griepentrog (1990) takes the next leap and claims
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).
Codex Bononiensis: The ‘Bologna fragment’

Discovered in 2010, cod. Bon. is a bifolium (two pages recto and verso) on a palimp-
sest [c61] from the Basilica of San Petronio in Bologna. The Gothic text (Falluomini
2014, 2016b, 2017; Auer & De Vaan 2016; cf. Finazzi & Tornaghi 2013, 2014) was scraped
off but mostly visible behind the letters superimposed to reuse the manuscript for
Augustine’s De civitate Dei. The Gothic is an eclectic composition of Old and New
Testament quotes that go back to Wulfila’s version. Various stylistic points and
invocations (‘save us, Lord’) suggest a sermon (Sigismund 2016). Multiple defenses of
God (‘if there is no God . . . ’) point also to a proselytizing function (but see Wolfe
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).
Codex Vindobonensis / Gotica Vindobonensia

The so-called Salzburg-Vienna Alcuin MS (cod. Vindobonensis, Österreichische Nation-
albibliothek, Lat. 795) [c8e/9b] contains a few words from Lk 9:28 (and maybe 15:32),
the title of Luke’s Gospel, some numerals of Genesis, two abecedaria with the first
sixteen of the 27 Gothic letters (Falluomini 2010a; cf. Sickel 1875: 471ff.), plus letter
names resembling the Old English and Old Norse rune names (§2.1). The Gothic text
is later, possibly inserted by Visigoths in southern Gaul (Falluomini 2015: 43). The
entire contents are summarized and described in Zironi (2009: 254–65).
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).
1.6 The Bible translation

Because of Hellenization and then Christianization, Gothic has several layers of cul-
ture terms, some borrowed, some translated by novel derivatives or compounds, and
many expressed by adaptation of a native word or compound, especially to express
Christian meanings (Kauffmann 1920: esp. 357–88; 1923). Generally speaking, Greek
loanwords are mostly connected with Christianity. Other terms of Mediterranean
civilization are from Latin (Kortlandt 2001).
Excluding the Bologna fragment and the Crimean graffiti, the Gothic lexicon con-
tains 333 foreign names and 146 loanwords and derivatives from them (Snædal 2009a:
152f.). There are also many calques (Schulze 1905; Gaebeler 1911; Lühr 1985; Davis
2002; Casaretto 2010, 2014; Snædal 2015a). Generally speaking, Velten (1930: 303)
found over 400 loan translations vs. 116 borrowings. Divergences in the rendering of
the foreign words and constructions are partly stylistic or interpretive and partly due
14 Huld (1990) assumes loss of h and a new dialect: in scapiam atzia ia(h) drincan ‘let us prepare food
and drink’, atzia and drincan are acc nouns, atzja (acc pl n) ‘eats’, cognate with ON -æti ‘food’ (mostly
for animals), in contrast to Wulfilian af-etja (2x) ‘glutton’ with e.
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.
1.7 Lexical localization
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.
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.
1.8 Morphological and syntactic localization
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).
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.
1.9 The Greek Vorlage

The primary source or model (‘Vorlage’) for the Gothic translation was the Greek New
Testament, but 5400 manuscripts with 200,000 to 300,000 differences are extant
(Ehrman 2000: 443), and the Gothic version does not entirely reflect any one of them.
1.9 The Greek Vorlage 19
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).
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
Alphabet and phonology
2.1 The Gothic alphabet

There are many testimonies that Wulfila invented the Gothic alphabet (Lendinara 1992).
Most of the twenty-seven letters resemble the Greek script, as shown in Table 2.1.
Variant forms are discussed by Marchand (1973a: 18–22). The second row contains the
numerical value, the third the Greek letter, the fourth the Roman transliteration, and the
last row the ninth-century letter name that has been supposed to be Gothic.
Table 2.1 Gothic alphabet

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 –

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

( ) (S) ϝ / (ϡ)
r s t w f wh o –
reda sugil tyz uuinne fe enguz uuaer utal –

22 Alphabet and phonology
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
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
‘leading’, | (Sk 3.1.16f.) = dat sg m ain| aþarammeh ‘each’,

(Sk 1.4.19) = dat pl waurstwam ‘with deeds’. Most editors just
transcribe the nasals.
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/.
(§2.7; 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.).
/w/ and (?) /y/

Greek upsilon was borrowed as Gothic , in the same position (after ) and with
the same numerical value of 400. It usually has the value /w/, as in acc pl weinatriwa
(1Cor 9:7A) to weinatriu (Jn 15:1, 5) ‘vine’ (cf. Voyles 1968: 725). It also rendered the
and of Greek loanwords, suggesting that and were both pronounced /y/ at that
time, e.g. acc Nwmfan ‘Nymphas’ (Col 4:15A/B), dat pl Lwstrws
(2Tim 3:11A/B) /lýstrys/ = Gk. Lústrois ‘in Lustra’, a city in Asia Minor (§2.6).
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 .
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).
2.3 Phonological system 1: Consonants

Table 2.2 contains the inventory of Gothic consonantal segments (labvel = labiovelar)
(cf. Moulton 1948: 77ff.).
Stops and fricatives
Table 2.2 Gothic consonantal system
labial coronal palatal velar labvel low
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
From alternations with voiceless fricatives, orthographic b, d, g were voiced continu-

ants [β, ð, ] after vowels (Rauch 2011: 47f.; Kotin 2012: 64f.), but stops [b, d, g] after
consonants and when geminated (Moulton 1954; Zadorožnyj 1959; Marchand 1973a:
64–8, 76; Harbert 2007: 50). See the statistical data in Hench (1897), who is wrong
about spirants after /l/ (Sturtevant 1953: 55f.). Spellings of loanwords are indeterminate
(Leppänen 2016: 104f.).
As evidence of the Gothic distribution, the frequently cited Naúbaímbaír (Cal 2)
‘November’—if it exists (see Preface xxv)—proves nothing because Vulgar Latin b and
v merged before c5/6 (Luft 1898a: 294f.; GGS 37; EIE 55f.), i.e. before the composition
of cod. Ambr. A. Inconclusive also is losef ‘Joseph’ with f except in its sole occurrence
in Skeireins with b : dat sg lo|seba (Sk 2.1.7f.) vs. losefa (Mk 15:45). The reason for
such variation in borrowed names is not clear (GGS 57f.). More informative are spell-
ing alternations like dat pl fragibtim (Lk 1:27) ‘betrothal’ (attributed by Sturtevant
[1931: 68] to the b in the immediately following abin ‘husband’) beside fragiftim
(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.
Final spirant devoicing

Gothic devoiced fricatives in word-final position (cf. Moulton 1954), e.g. as ‘who’ :
azuh ‘each’, máis ‘more, rather’ : máiz-uh (Sk 8.2.2; Streitberg 1905: 388ff.) ‘and rather’
(§6.36) beside was ‘was’ : was-uh (freq) ‘and was’ with underlying /s/; acc goþ : gen
godis ‘good’; 2pl gaggiþ qiþid-uh (Mk 16:7) ‘go and tell’; nom twalif : gen twalibe ‘12’,
hláifs (11x) ‘bread’ : gen sg hláibis (Jn 6:51, 1Cor 10:17, 11:28A). The -s is not the condi-
tioning factor in hláifs. Contrast nom sg m blinds ‘blind’, n blind / blindata, with a
stop, not a continuant, because of the nasal, or lamb ‘sheep’, nom/acc pl lamba.
g did not alternate; cf. dags ‘day’, acc dag, gen dagis, etc.; magan* ‘can’ : 1/3sg mag.
The reason is disputed. One possibility is the absence of a letter for velar [x] if was
restricted to loanwords and perhaps just graphic. Kostakis (2015: ch. 3) argues that h
was still [x]. Frequent word-final -g can derive from the lack of contrast between the
positional variants [ ] and [x] (Roberge 1984: 327, w. lit), which contributed to block-
ing final devoicing from applying (Suzuki 2018). Another suggestion is that h was a
glottal continuant [h], and could not be used for [x], i.e. nahts ‘night’ was /nahts/ (cf.
Marchand 1973a: 53f., 77, w. lit). Vennemann (1972: 878f.) claims that h was [h]
word-initially and uvular [ ] elsewhere, and for this reason could not be used for the
[x] in mag etc. (cf. Moulton 1948: 79; 1954: 7). Weingärtner (1858: 54ff.), Jasanoff
(2004: 886), and Howell (1988, 1991: 90f.; 2018) argue that */x/ had already become [h]
(§2.7). Paradigmatic analogy can explain the g in 2sg magt (cf. GGS 71; Marchand
1973a: 68; Roberge 1984: 326; Heidermanns 2007b: 63), and would not affect the h in
acc sg maht ‘power’ or 3sg pret mahta ‘was able’ (pace Roberge 1984: 335; cf. GGS 58).
Conservative spelling can explain the -g in mag ‘can’ etc., which can represent [g]
(Roberge 1984: 337) or [ ] (Suzuki 2018). Of course, if h was [h], and final g [x],
g would be a better representation for the latter.
Final voiced obstruents

To account for frequent 3sg -d and roughly 226 final -d, -b, -z (in decreasing fre-
quency, -z never in verbal inflections), Roberge (1983) adduces early accent fixing in
Gothic plus post-Wulfilian devoicing. Final voiced segments were residues of the
older contrast between, e.g. qaþ ‘said’ (over 470x) and haubid ‘head’ (acc 2x vs. haubiþ
22x, 4 dupl). Later scribes tried to reconcile their neutralization of the contrast with
the received text but left inconsistencies (cf. Salmons 2018) with identical deviations
in codd. Ambr. A, B. In Luke 1–7, -iþ, -uþ occur 34x, -id, -ud 30x, but after nonshort
vowels -d predominates: -eiþ, -oþ, -aiþ occur 18x vs. -eid, -od, -aid 29x (Hench 1897: 51).
In John 11–16 verbal -d occurs only after a long vowel or diphthong. No -d occurs in
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.).
Strings of /n/ + /g/

Variant spellings like bringiþ (Lk 15:22) for briggiþ ‘brings’
occur, probably under Latin influence (Maßmann 1857: lvi f.; Francovich Onesti
2007; Falluomini 2015: 19) but Greek inscriptions contain similar examples. The alter-
nation confirms the [ŋ] value of g(g/k) as in Greek (Brosman 1971: 166, w. lit; Snædal
2011b); cf. aggilus [aŋgilus] ‘angel’ (Gk. [áŋgelos] ‘messenger; angel’).
Prefixes like in-, un- do not assimilate to [ŋ] (Snædal 2011b; cf. GGS 55, Penzl 1950).7
/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)’.
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).
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).
2.4 Verner’s Law (VL)
When the Indo-European accent followed, a continuant produced by Grimm’s Law

(GL) became voiced by Verner’s Law (Verner 1875), e.g. *ph2tē r (Skt. pitā, Gk. patē r)
‘father’ > Gmc. *faþē r (GL) > *faðē r (VL) > *fádēr (accent shift); cf. Goth. voc fadar
(Gal 4:6A). The vocative is the source of the Gmc. r- stem nominative (Stiles 1988,
Hamp 1990).
2.4–5 Verner's and Thurneysen's Law 31
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].
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).
2.5 Thurneysen’s Law (TL)
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).
2.6 Phonological system 2: Vowels

The frequency of the vowel letters is a > Ï i > u > o > e (GGS 25f., 28). Table 2.3
contains the usual interpretation of the vowel letters, less the diphthongs (§§2.8, 2.13)
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.
(cf. Mossé 1956: 58; Vennemann 1971; 1978: 340f.). The indeterminacies are laid out by
Heffner (1935).
Table 2.3 Gothic vowel system
short long
front back front back
high i (y) u ī u
mid high mid ē ō

low mid
low a ā
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.
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.
(Lk 1:19, 26) for Gabriē l (391 examples, or 93.1%, according to

Leppänen 2016: 106), there are vernacular borrowings with the advanced
raising, such as Aírmogaíneis / rmōg nīs/ (2Tim 1:15A/B) for Gk. Hermogénēs
‘Hermogenes’.15
2. Monophthongization. By 150 ce, there is considerable spelling variation
in Greek between Ε (epsilon), Η (eta), and ΑΙ (ai) (Threatte 1980: 294–9),
suggesting a front mid vowel. Thus the value [ ] for the digraph ai, as in
Paítrus for Gk. Pétros, Lat. Petrus ‘Peter’, is based on Greek where, long before
Wulfila, ai became a normal variant of / /.16
It is generally agreed that the Gothic digraphs ai, au can be short / /̆ , / /̆ , or
long / /, / /, the inherited mid diphthongs having been monophthongized.17 Gothic
diphthongs are discussed in §2.13.
The diphthong [au] remained longer in Greek and Latin; cf. Lat. Austrogoti [ca.
300] but Ostrogot(h)i [ca. 400] ‘Austrogoths’ (Wrede 1891: 20, 166; Nielsen 2010: 431;
but see GG 44).
Wulfila used au for / /, as in Saúdaúma (Rom 9:29A) for Gk. Sódoma ‘Sodom’,
and voc Þaíaúfeilu /þ fīlu/ (Lk 1:3) for Theóphile ‘Theophilos’. Since Greek au
was still a diphthong, this was an invention by analogy with ai for / / (GGS 29;
Vennemann 1971: 111–16, 126–30; Ebbinghaus 1979a: 23ff.), possibly based on runic
prototypes (Cercignani 1988: 181f.) or the Vulgar Latin realization of au as o (GGS 29).
The objection that au remained in the east misses the point that the Goths may have
known Latin from the west (§1.1).
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).
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.
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
No breaking except before /r/ in monosyllabics requires dubious assumptions

about original Wulfilian spellings, changes at the time of a putative Ostrogothic redac-
tion, and generalizations. Simplicity demands recognition of a rule that lowers
stressed /i/ and /u/ to aí [ ], aú [ ] before r, h, . This rule applied in pre-Gothic but
parallels elsewhere in Germanic were independent (Patrick Stiles, p.c.; Howell 2018;
pace Kock 1902; Hill 2017). It remained a synchronic rule, albeit opaque. The nativiza-
tion/integration of some loans increased the opacity (cf. Van Coetsem 1999), which
includes exceptions to the input (hiri, ur-, nih) and the environment. The latter is
exemplified by the reduplicating syllable with its own principles. Both kinds of
opacity abound in borrowings like Aífaíson ‘Ephesus’, Na|bukaúdaúnaúsaúr (Bl 2v.22f.)
‘Nebuchadnezzar’ (Gk. Naboukhodonósor).
2.8 Did Wulfila have diphthongal ai, au?
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.
(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).
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).
2.9 The long : short contrast
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.
2.10 Sonority and word form

Complex onsets licensed by the sonority hierarchy (SH)26 occur in all of Germanic;
cf. (2). See the list in Douse (1886: 61, 64, 73), statistics in Joos 1942: 34 (cf. GGS 53ff.),
and all Gothic clusters in Sinal (1971) and Suzuki (1987a); cf. Uvíra (1972). Triliteral
clusters beginning with s are the maximum type in any Germanic language (Napoleão
de Souza 2017) and are rare due to a developing constraint (Vennemann 2000).
(2) a) str- Goth. striks ‘stroke’ (Mt 5:18), OE strīcan strike, OHG strīhhan
‘strike’, ON striúka ‘stroke’
b) gl- Goth. glitmunjan* ‘glisten, gleam’, ON glitra, ME gliteren glitter,
MHG glitzern ‘glitter’
c) dr- Goth. drigkan, OE drincan drink, ON drekka, OHG trinkan ‘drink’
d) dw- Goth. dwalmon* ‘rave’, OE dwolma ‘confusion’, E dwalm ‘swoon’,
OHG twalm ‘stupefaction’
e) fl- Goth. flodus (Lk 6:49, with a margin gloss a a ‘water’), OE flōd
flood, ON flóð, OHG fluot ‘flood’
f) hl- Goth. hláifs ‘bread’, OE hlāf loaf, ON hleifr ‘id.’, OHG leip ‘bread,
loaf ’
g) hn- Goth. hneiwan ‘wane, draw to a close’ (Lk 9:12), ON hníga ‘sink down, fall
gently’, OE hnīgan ‘bend, bow down’, OS hnīgan ‘id.’, OHG (h)nīgan ‘id.’
(EDPG 236f.)
h) kn- Goth. kniu*, OE cnēo(w) knee, ON kné, OHG chniu, kneo ‘knee’
i) þw- Goth. þwaírhs ‘cross, angry’, OE þwerh ‘crooked, cross, perverse’, OHG
dwerh ‘id.’, ON þwert ‘across, athwart’
Clusters like *lg-, *rt-, *lf-, etc., are unattested as onsets but wellformed codas.
Gothic has one instance of *bn-, in bnauan* ‘rub’ (only PrP nom pl m bnauandans
Lk 6:1); cf. ON (g)núa ‘rub’. The etymology is disputed (GED 77) and ignored in EDPG.
In a syllabifying environment, not adjacent to a vowel, the most sonorous segment
in a string syllabifies. Words like irons [ayrnz] with heavy coda can resyllabify. The SH
predicts that of the liquid and nasal, both of which are in an environment to syllabify,
the liquid will syllabify first, hence disyllabic [ayrnz].
Each of the Germanic languages differs slightly, but all obey the SH in core word
structure. The major exception involves CR clusters at the right edge, e.g. Gmc. *akraz >
Goth. akrs (Mt 27:8 2x), ON akr ‘field’. While there is no way to know for certain how
many syllables akrs contained, ON akr was monosyllabic (Schulze 1927: 114f., w. lit),
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
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.
2.11 Word breaks and syllabification

Line-end word breaks provide clues to Gothic syllabification, as noticed independ-
ently by Hechtenberg-Collitz (1906) and Schulze (1908), acknowledged by Schulze
(1909: 327f.), and developed by Hermann (1923: 287–93). Barrack (2011) collects all of
the examples for codd. Arg., Ambr. A, B, and Skeireins. Not all word breaks are possible
syllable divisions. In Skeireins, for instance, there are 335 line-end word breaks, of
which 73 involve compounding elements or prefixes, e.g. ana- 7x, ga- 18x, us- 7x + 1 ur-)
(Hechtenberg-Collitz 1906; Frey 1989: 280ff.). There are also fewer than ten divisions
that are entirely arbitrary and cannot possibly represent syllable structure, e.g. þwai-
rheins (Sk 8.3.10f.) ‘of anger’. However, the bulk of the examples in Skeireins are con-
sistent with frequent types of syllabification crosslinguistically (Frey 1989), and with
the syllabification in the subscript to Mark (S), e.g. ai wag gel jo (Stutz 1991: 3f.).
In Skeireins, a string CVCV is divided CV-CV in 139 words, e.g. dáu-peins (3.4.1f.)
‘baptizing’, lái-sareis (7.1.17f.) ‘of the master’, lái-sein (8.2.14f.) ‘teaching’, praúfe-te
(6.3.18f.) ‘of prophets’. Exceptions are few (Schulze 1908: 611f.).
A string (C)VCCV in Skeireins is divided (C)VC-CV in 86 words, e.g. aflif-nandeins
(7.4.14f.) ‘of remaining’, aíwaggel-jons (4.1.5f.) ‘of the gospel’, at-ta (6.3.10f.) ‘father’,
dráus-nos (7.4.15f.) ‘fragments’ (acc), háus-jan (6.1.10f.) ‘to listen to’, láisar-ja (2.2.9f.)
‘master’ (dat), man-na (8.1.23f.) ‘man’, stib-na (6.3.19f., 6.4.16f.) ‘voice’, þaþ-ro (6.4.24f.)
‘henceforth’ (cf. Schulze 1908: 612).
Clusters of sibilant + stop (st, sk, zd, etc.) are invariably (over 50x) divided with the
sibilant forming the coda of the previous syllable (Hermann 1923: 292).
Vennemann (1987) claims that C-liquid clusters are tautosyllabified, but C-glide re-
main heterosyllabic. That is true of glides (Pierce 2004: 91; Barrack 2011: over 400
examples), but CR clusters can be divided C.R (neþ-los Lk 18:25) or, preferentially,
according to the SH and maximize onset: Ga-briel (Lk 1:26), fa-dreinais (Lk 2:4) ‘of the
family’, ne-þlos (Mk 10:25) ‘of a needle’ (see Schulze 1908; Suzuki 1987a: 38–41; and
especially Barrack 2011). Strings involving more than two intervocalic Cs follow the
SH and maximize onset where possible, e.g. af-tra (Sk 1.3.22f., Arg. 4x, Ambr. A 1x)
‘again’, An-draías (Sk 7.1.6f.) (Hermann 1923: 290f.). Otherwise, V(Cn)CCV is divided
V(Cn)C-CV 1017x in cod. Arg., 1997x in codd. Arg., Ambr. A, B, and Skeireins (Barrack 2011).
Strings of consonant plus resonant (sonorant consonant) have been considered
problematic because of line-end word breaks like ak-ran (Phil 1:22B) ‘fruit’ but hlei-
þrái (2Cor 5:4B) ‘hut’ (dat sg). These are also principled. According to Riad (1992: 87,
2004: 188f.) and Pierce (2013b), the difference is due to Prokosch’s Law (1939: 140),
according to which the main-stressed syllable is preferentially bimoraic. This licenses
a syllable division [ak.ran], but not *hleiþ.rai because ei is already long. There are,
2.12 Duple timing and Sievers’ Law 47
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.
2.12 Duple timing and Sievers’ Law

All bases in Germanic tend to have approximately the same weight: one heavy syllable
or two light (Lass & Anderson 1975: 266, 268, 273, w. lit). That is, all bases aimed
toward a duple timed target.
By way of illustration, Old English balances the nom/acc neuter plural -u of scip-u
‘ships’ (4a) against apocope of -u in word ‘words’ (4b) and wīf ‘women’ (4c). We(o)rod
‘troops’ (4d) and wæpen-u ‘weapons’ (4e) are based on the same principle that two
light syllables equal one heavy (Miller 1990: 172; 2010: i. 252ff.).27
(4) Final syllables of neuter plurals (Old English)28
a) scip-u ‘ships’ d) we(o)rod ‘troops’
b) word ‘words’ e) wæpen-u – ‘weapons’
c) wīf ‘women’
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.
Noun paradigms containing IE *-y- (Gmc. *-j-) strive to maintain a duple-timed

balance most visible in Gothic, as in (5b, c), discussed by Riad (1992: ch. 2) and
Kiparsky (2000: 29), among others (cf. GGS 34, CGG 136).
(5) Gothic -ja- stem genitive singular
a) {hari+is} > harjis [harjis] ‘of an army’ (harjis)
b) {herdi+is} > hairdeis [hεrdīs] ‘of a shepherd (hairdeis)’
c) {ragini+is} > ragineis [raginīs] ‘of a counselor (ragineis)’
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.
Duple timing is supposedly disrupted in (6a) because in Gothic stressed syllables

all coda consonants are moraic but in unstressed syllables only sonorants are moraic.
(Riad 1992: 44–8). Nevertheless, by most accounts, the first syllable of satjiþ is light, or
“juste,” according to Saussure, as opposed to -ei- after a “syllabe ample,” e.g. hairdeis
‘of a shepherd’, sokeiþ ‘seeks’ (Rousseau 2009: 494; 2012: 65, 98). Moreover, syllable
weight is not strictly binary but involves gradient values (Ryan 2011).
The flipside of the anapaestic structure of riqizeiþ and ragineis is the dactylic structure
of fairgunjis ‘of the mountain/hill’ (fairguni), -iþa derivatives (aggwiþa ‘distress’, gáuriþa
‘sorrow’, weihiþa ‘holiness’, etc. §8.7), and most -ata neuters (allata ‘all’, juggata ‘young’,
niujata ‘new’, etc. §3.7), which figured in their genesis (Ratkus 2015). Significant is the
duple timing of all of these and the fact that, as in Latin (Miller 2010: i. 248f.), cretic
(𝅘𝅥 𝅘𝅥) structures like *fairguneis were not a variation option (Erdmann 1972: 412). This is
not predicted by metrical foot accounts because (fairgu) and (neis) are both valid
metrical feet, but duple timing predicts that a word with 5 beats is not highly valued.
2.13 Diphthongs and related

Diphthongs [ai] and [au] were evidently not a regular part of the Gothic phonological
inventory because borrowed diphthongs are written with w. For instance, Gk. αυ au is
rendered by aw, as in Pawlus ‘Paul’ (divided Paw|lus Gal 5:2B) for Paũlos, Esaw (acc
Rom 9:13A) ‘Esau’ for Ēsaũ (Jones 1960: 510). The idea that aw is just an exact
transliteration (Wagner 2006: 390f.; Kortlandt 2017) does not explain the -Vw- diph-
thongs in native Gothic words below.
Greek [eu] was rendered by aiw in Goth. aíwxaristian / uk/xaristian/ (acc sg 2Cor
9:11B) for eukharistíān ‘eucharist’, aíwlaúgian (acc sg 2Cor 9:5A/B) for
eulogíān ‘bounty, gift’, aíwneika (2Tim 1:5A) ‘Eunice’, etc. (cf. Jones 1960: 510).
Ambiguous are aíwaggeljo (Mk 14:9+ [49x, 8 dupl]) for Gk. euaggélion ‘gospel’ and
paraskaíwe (Mk 15:42, acc sg paraskaíwein Mt 27:62) for paraskeuē ‘preparation’.
These can contain diphthongs or intervocalic /w/, i.e. [ u.V] or [ .wV]. The line-end
word breaks ai|waggeljo (2Cor 4:3B), ai|waggeljons (Sk 3.4.8f.), and the syllabification
ai-wag-gel-jo (MkS subscript) point to the latter. Because of the e in aiwaggeljo, a Latin
origin has been suggested (GGS 189f.; Corazza 1969: 91f.), but, if e is due to open syl-
lable lengthening (OSL), which occurred in c2 (cf. Loporcaro 2015), it should be too
late for intervocalic [w] which shifted to [v] during c1 (EIE 51). However, there may be
epigraphic evidence that [w] lasted longer in the east. Unless the changes in the Greek
spelling of the Latin name Sevērus reflect conservative Latin pronunciation of the name,
it is possible that [w] was kept at least in educated varieties until the third century.30
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
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), -aiwis 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]).
(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.
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’
34 Glide strengthening (constriction) is frequent crosslinguistically (cf. Van Coetsem 1949).

OHG houwan : hio : hiw/uwun : gi-houwan

OE hēawan : hēow : hēowon : hēawen
(15) *twai (Goth. twai, ON tveir, OE twā TWO) : gen pl *twajj-an (EDPG 529)
Goth. twaddje (5x + 1 twadje: Snædal 2011b: 148), NGmc. *twaggjō
(> ON tveggja) (cf. OHG (Isidor) zweiio)
(16) *treww-u- > Goth. triggws ‘faithful, trustworthy’ (EDPG 523)
NGmc. *triuggwaz > ON tryggr ‘faithful, true’
WGmc. *treuw-ijaz > OHG gi-triuwi, OS triuwi, OE trēowe true
One obvious question is where *treww-u- comes from Heidermanns (1986: 298) posits
a series of apparently spontaneous changes: *trew-a- > *treu-wa- > *triu-wa- > *triwwa-,
followed by a change of *-wa- to *-u- (p. 302).
There have been three major accounts of Verschärfung: (i) laryngeals, with many
variations (most of the literature from 1949 to 1998 is listed in Mees 2011: 66f.),
(ii) morphological gemination, (iii) a phonological change involving glide insertion
before a vocalic morpheme in disyllabic forms (Petersen 2002). In (14), then, Petersen
sees ON hjó as a monosyllabic residue that never underwent Verschärfung.
Laryngeal accounts are typified by Lindeman (1962), Lühr (1976), Jasanoff (1978),
and Rasmussen (1990). Kuryłowicz (1967; 1968: 329–33) offers a morphological
theory. Kroonen (2013) accepts multiple sources. Ringe (2017: 268) rejects laryngeal
accounts.
Jasanoff proposes a solution by which *-Vi/uHV- (vowel - i or u - laryngeal - vowel)
becomes V-glide-glide-V, i.e. *-ViHV- > *-ViyV- > *-VyyV-, and also *-VuHV- >
*-VuwV- > *-VwwV-, as in the following examples:
(17) *bheuh2-o-m ‘growth’ > *beuw-a- > *bewwa- > ON bygg, OE bēow ‘barley’
(cf. EDPG 63)
(18) *wóih1-u- [*weih1- ‘twist’ LIV 695] > *wajju-:
Goth. -waddjus (11 -waddj- forms: Snædal 2011b: 148), ON veggr ‘wall’
(Jasanoff 1978: 84; Neri 2003: 268–72; 2016: 19; Snædal 2016: 103)
On Jasanoff 's account, the reflexes of the verb ‘brew’ are as in (19).
(19) *bhreuhx-e/o- > *breuw-an- > *breww-an- > OE brēowan brew
This account leaves a few facts unexplained:
(i) PPP *bhruhx-e/ono- > *bruw-i/ana-, hence paradigmatic analogy is needed
to derive the *bruww-ina- that underlies ON brugginn ‘brewed’. However,
brugga may continue a secondary iterative *bruwwōn (EDPG 76).
(ii) Is it accidental that the verbs did not get reassigned to the second class
(type Gmc. *fleugan ‘fly’) but instead behave like the winnan / wan type?
(iii) Why should [euw] assimilate to [eww] when otherwise [ewC] avoids
precisely such a structure? Compare *néwio-s > Gmc. *neuja- (EDPG 389) >
Goth. niujis ‘new’ or secondary *-wy- in gen sg maujos {maw+j+ōs} <

*magw-jōs (KM 73, NWG 153, EDPG 359), to Goth. mawi ‘girl’. This is envir-
onmentally conditioned by /j/ unless a heavy syllable preceded, as in alewjo
‘of olives’ (Heidermanns 2007a: 217), and it is possible that /w/ did not behave
the same. In case it did, there have been several responses (e.g. Rowe 2003;
Davis & Iverson 1996). Davis & Iverson propose that, as the laryngeals were
dropping, the feature [+consonantal] spread from the laryngeal to the pre-
ceding glide. On this account, then, there never was a stage like *beuw-a-
but rather *bew-wa- was the direct phonological output of *bewhx-a-. The
strengthening was already Proto-Germanic, viz. *begwa-, which became
[ggw] in North and East Germanic, simplified to mere gemination in West
Germanic. The last part of the hypothesis is particularly problematic because
(i) it is more difficult to account for other sources of Verschärfung, and
(ii) West Germanic chose gemination over glide strengthening: -VwwV- >
-VuwV-, -VjjV- > -VijV- (Suzuki 1991: 182).
(iv) Laryngeal solutions are incredibly facile and invite finagling. Jasanoff needs
metathesis of *kah2u- to *kauh2- to motivate gemination in *hawwan ‘hew’,
and Rasmussen assumes a “parallel” root *kauh2- (1990: 439). Kroonen (2013:
xxxix) cites roots that had a laryngeal in Indo-European but no Germanic
gemination. Gmc. *tawjan- (Goth. taujan etc.) ‘make’ has been derived from
*deuh2- ‘fit together’ (e.g. LHE2 282) but, because there is no gemination, a
separate form *deh2u- is invented (LIV 123; cf. EDPG 511). Also proposed is
causative-iterative *dh3ou-éyo- [*dh3éu- ‘give, dedicate’] (see taujan in App.).
Since Germanic had *-ww- and *-jj- from several sources (assimilation, contrac-
tion, expressive gemination, morphological composition), there is nothing wrong
with a laryngeal source. What is most puzzling about many accounts is why laryngeals
and other sources of gemination are seen as mutually exclusive.
Faroese developed Verschärfung with no help from laryngeals. For instance,
ON, OFar. róa /row.a/ ‘row’ > MFar. *[row.wa ~ ro .wa] > Far. rógva (Petersen 2002:
16f.). This change occurred only in disyllabic forms. The monosyllabic impv ró remained
row in Old and Middle Faroese, with some analogy in Far. ró(gv). There are also paral-
lels in Danish dialects of West Jutland (ibid. 18).
Laryngeals were at least one source of geminate glides in Germanic. The initial
phase on most accounts is triggered by assimilation: *-VuHV- > *-VuwV-. The second
stage (*-VuwV- > *-VwwV-) is more difficult (except for Davis & Iverson). Suzuki
(1991: 170ff.) motivates the changes via preferred Germanic syllable contact, e.g. *-Vu.
HV- > *-Vu.V- > *-Vw.wV-. This yields the disyllabic glides that provide for the second
stage, as in Faroese.
To account for the genitive plural of ‘two’, at least as a contributing factor, nothing
precludes Kuryłowicz’s use of the ambiguity of nom *twai, which is derivable from
underlying */twajj/ after simplification of final geminate glides (1967: 450; 1968: 333).
On that account, laryngeal assimilation would work as in (20).
(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).
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
The nominal system
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.
3.2 Noun inflection

The two largest classes were thematic (-a-) stems (Goth. dags ‘day’), and feminine
-ō- stems (Goth. giba ‘gift’), plus similar formations (-ja-, -jō-, etc.). Other stem types
include -i- (runic -gastiz, Goth. gasts ‘guest’), -u- (sunus ‘son’), -n- (guma ‘man’, qino
‘woman’), -nd- (nasjands ‘savior’), -r- (broþar ‘brother’), consonant (baúrgs ‘city’),
mixed -C- and -n- manna ‘man(kind), human being’. Qino ‘woman’ partially overlaps
with qens ‘wife’ (Kauffmann 1920: 349–53), and manna with waír ‘adult male, man’,
guma ‘(fullgrown) man’, and aba ‘husband’ (ibid. 353–6; Barasch 1973: 149; Melloni
1979; Meid 1999b).
After Vr, r-stems drop nom sg -s, e.g. waír ‘man’, unsar ‘our’, but akrs ‘field’, hors
‘adulterer’, gáurs ‘sad’ (Heffner 1930; Schmierer 1977: 75; Schuhmann 2018b).
Aiws* (m) ‘time, age, eon’ is an -a- stem except for acc pl áiwins (Mt 6:13), perhaps
analogical to rhyming saiws* ‘lake, marshland’ (Sturtevant 1945a: 3).
Wegs (m) ‘wave’ may be an -i- stem because of lengthened grade and dat pl wegim
(Mt 8:24); nom pl wegos (Mk 4:37) is then an innovation (NWG 183f.).
Andeis (m -ja-) ‘end’ has been reported to have an irregular acc pl *andins (Rom
10:18A) but the correct reading is most likely andjans (Snædal 2013a: i. xvii).

Table 3.1 Gothic noun classes
-a- stem -ja- stem -wa- -ō- -jō-
masc neut masc masc neut neut fem fem

‘day’ ‘word’ ‘shepherd’ ‘army’ ‘clan’ ‘knee’ ‘gift’ ‘girl’
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
masc masc masc fem masc masc fem masc

‘guest’ ‘son’ ‘man’ ‘woman’ ‘savior’ ‘brother’ ‘city’ ‘man’
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.
3.3 Additional noun classes
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
laiseino, dat laiseinim, acc laiseinins. An exception is dat pl unkaureinom (2Cor

11:9B), the only form attested to unkaureins* ‘unburdensomeness’.
Feminine abstracts in -on- and -ain- have regular plural forms, e.g. nom mitoneis
(Mk 7:21, Lk 2:35), gen mitone (Rom 14:1A), acc mitonins, to mitons, acc miton
‘reasoning, deliberation, thought’.
The masculine consonant stem reiks ‘ruler, prince’ has sg nom reiks, gen reikis
(Mt 9:23), dat reik (Eph 2:2A/B), pl nom reiks, gen reike, dat reikam (Jn 12:42).
Menoþs (m -C-) ‘month’: sg nom menoþs (Lk 1:36), gen menoþis (Neh 6:15), dat
menoþ (Lk 1:26), pl acc menoþs (Lk 1:24, 56, 4:25), dat menoþum (Gal 4:10A).
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
Table 3.2 Neutral deixis
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.
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
3.5 Syntax of sa, þata, so
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
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’
When a head noun is omitted, a D specifies definiteness (GrGS 168; Bernhardt

1874a: 15ff.), e.g. þai / þans twalif ‘the twelve’, þata | ja | ja | jah þata | ne | ne (2Cor
1:17A/B [B has | line breaks]) ‘(the) yea yea and nay nay’, þata anafulhano (Mk 7:9)
[that handed on] ‘(the) tradition’, þata gamelido (12x, 1 dupl) ‘that (which is) written
down; Scripture’, dat bi þamma gamelidin (2Cor 4:13B) ‘according to that (which is)
written’, gaggiþ afar þamma fralusanin (Lk 15:4) ‘goes after the lost (one/sheep)’. In the
absence of D, a substantivized participle is underspecified for definiteness or is indef-
inite, e.g. haitada horinondei (Rom 7:3A) ‘she is called an adulteress’ (Gk. moikhalìs
khrēmatísei [act] ‘she will bear the label adulteress’), azuh saei afleitana liugaiþ (Lk
16:18) ‘whoever marries a divorcée’, sa ize [= izei] afsatida liugaiþ (Mt 5:32) ‘id.’ (cf.
Gering 1874: 314f.).
Patronymics with D normally imply a null sunus ‘son’: Laiwwi þana Alfaiaus (Mk
2:14) ‘Levi the (son) of Alphaeus’, exactly like Gk. Leuï tòn toũ Alphaíou [Levi the
of.the Alphaeus] (GrGS 214; see §4.13).
Predicate adjectives normally take strong inflection (but see §3.9) and, when used
adjectivally, allow no D; cf. jabai as wili frumists wisan, sijai allaize aftumists
(Mk 9:35) ‘if anyone wants to be first, let him be last of all’ (Wagner 1909: 51, 52;
Ratkus 2011).
D is normally absent in prepositional phrases (§11.8), genitives (§11.10), and can
co-occur with infinitives (§9.22).
To conclude this section, Gothic Ds correspond to Greek articles in emphatic,
demonstrative, and relative contexts (Vilutis 1976–9). Native Gothic uses depend on
several syntactic and semantic features.
3.6 Weak and strong adjectives

Gothic adjectives were inflected for strong and weak forms in all genders, cases, and
two numbers. The weak adjective is an -n- stem with forms identical to those of guma
‘man’ (§3.2), hairto ‘heart’ (§3.3), and qino ‘woman’ (§3.2).
3.6 Weak and strong adjectives 67
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
Table 3.3 Strong and weak adjective
masc neuter fem

Strong
sg nom blinds blind* blindata* blinda*
acc blindana blind* blindata* blinda*
gen blindis* blindis* blindaizos*
dat blindamma blindamma* blindai*
pl nom blindai blinda* blindos*
acc blindans blinda* blindos*
gen blindaize* blindaize* blindaizo*
dat blindaim blindaim* blindaim*
Weak
sg nom blinda blindo* blindo*

acc blindan blindo* blindon*
gen blindins blindins* blindons*
dat blindin blindin* blindon*
pl nom blindans blindona* blindons*
acc blindans* blindona* blindons*
gen blindane* blindane* blindono*
dat blindam* blindam* blindom*
3 All numbers in this section exclude the Bologna fragment.

4 The best-attested alls ‘all’ has only strong forms and lacks the gen sg m; allis is only gen sg n 6x and
an adv/conj 27x (Snædal 2009a: 159). The three gender endings in the strong adj are innovations because
of the formal disagreement across Germanic (Schwink 2004: 72–84). Most have pronominal forms (but
are not pronouns; pace Birkhan 1974, Haudry 1981; see Bammesberger 1990a: 226f.) and differ from their
counterparts elsewhere in IE (Sievers 1876; Ratkus 2015, 2017a; more radical, McFadden 2009).
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).
3.7 Bare and -ata neuters
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
Gospels Epistles Skeireins

Scribe 1 Scribe 2
Mt Jn Lk Mk
-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
(6) jah ainshun ni giutid wein niujata in balgins fairnjans, aiþþau

and no.one neg pours wine new in bottles worn.out or.else
dis-tairid þata niujo wein þans balgins, jah silbo us-gutniþ,
apart-tears d new wine d bottles and same out-pours
jah þai balgeis fraqistnand | ak wein juggata in balgins
and d bottles perish.3pl but wine young in bottles
niujans giutand (Lk 5:37f.) [See ftn. 5.]
new pour.3pl
‘no one pours new wine in old bottles or that new wine (will) tear apart those bottles,
and the same (will) pour out, and the bottles become destroyed, but they pour young
wine in new bottles’
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
3.8 Uses of weak and strong adjectives
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).
‘all will be forgiven of the sins to the sons of men’

́
[Gk. pánta aphethēsetai ́
tà hamartēmata toĩs huioĩs tõn anthrō ṕ ōn ‘all the sins will be forgiven’]
What is þata? It looks like a mechanical rendering of Gk. tá ‘the’, except that toĩs and tõn are not translated.
The Vet. Lat. MSS (VL 1970: 25) have nothing like the Gothic construction. They are more like the Greek,
with omnia . . . peccāta ‘all sins’ or omne peccātum ‘every sin’.
Unlike all, which in most cases is followed directly by a partitive genitive, this never occurs with allata.
Another solution must be sought. The form allata is selected to insist on the authority of Jesus’ assertion
(Ratkus 2015), but since allata does not allow partitive arguments, the genitive was treated as an adjunct.
The use of D-words for appositional and resumptive adjuncts (§3.10) explains þata. The literal meaning is
something like ‘everything—the/that of sins—will be forgiven . . . ’.
Similar, but minus the genitive is (ii), where the devil is authoritatively addressing Jesus (Ratkus 2015).
(ii) þus giba þata waldufni þize allata (Lk 4:6)
you.dat give.1sg D.acc.sg.n power.acc.sg.n they.gen all.acc.sg.n
‘to you I will give this power of theirs, all of it’
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).
3.9 Nonattributive adjectives

Of the 1838 adjectives (excluding quantifiers), 700 are predicative, 585 with copula, of
which 433 are overt with wisan ‘to be’, wairþan ‘to become’, haitada ‘is called’, etc., and
152 with phonologically null verb (Ratkus 2011: 117ff.). Strong forms are the norm as
predicate adjectives, as in (8).
(8) a) braid daur jah rūms wigs (Mt 7:13)
broad door and roomy way
‘broad [is] the door and roomy the way’
b) ƕa aggwu þata daur (Mt 7:14)
‘how narrow [is] that door’
c) ei garaihtai wairþaima (Gal 2:16B)
that righteous.nom.pl.m become.1pl.opt
‘that we may become righteous’
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.).
3.10 Attributive adjectives and D-words

In the absence of an overt D-word, strong forms occur in most of the attributive con-
structions (Ratkus 2011: 108), e.g. bagms ubils [tree bad] ‘bad tree’, mahtins mikilos
[miracles great] ‘great miracles’. Weak forms occur primarily with a D-word (ibid.
86ff.), including appositional contexts, e.g. Lazarus sa dauþa (Jn 12:1) ‘Lazarus the
dead’ (cf. Falluomini 2013b: 157).
Strong forms without overt D-word in attributive function are illustrated
in (11a–c).
(11) a) inn-gagg-aiþ þairh aggwu daur (Mt 7:13)
in-go-2pl.opt through narrow door
‘go in through the narrow door’
b) galeiko ina waira frodamma (Mt 7:24)

liken.1sg he.acc.sg man.dat.sg wise.dat.sg.m
‘I (will) compare him to the wise man’
c) izwara goda waurstwa (Mt 5:16)
‘your good works’
d) þu nu, barn mein waliso (2Tim 2:1B)
‘you, then, my true child’
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’
In (13b) there appears to be a contrast between strong gods in attributive function

with no D-word, and weak goda in an appositional order with a D-word. But func-
tionally this is not appositional (Ratkus 2011: 233f.; see also the discussion in
Lichtenheld 1875: 36f.). The structure was by origin appositional, but reanalyzed as
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
a postnominal syntactic attributive, parallel to the similar Greek construction. For

both, Greek has ho poimē n ho kalós [the shepherd the good] ‘the good shepherd’.
Neither of the Gothic structures is a word-for-word copy of the corresponding
Greek.
Gothic has 100 examples of D-adjective-noun order and 47 like hairdeis sa goda, i.e.
noun-D-adjective (Ratkus 2011: 141).
Confusingly, the same superficial constituents make appositional and resumptive
adjuncts, as in (14). On factitive us-fratwjan ‘make wise’, see Wolf (1915: 27).
(14) weihos bokos kunþes, þos
holy.acc.pl.f book.acc.pl.f know.3sg.pret D.acc.pl.f
mahteigons þuk usfratwjan (2Tim 3:15A/B)
able.acc.pl.f.wk you.acc wisen.inf
‘you have known the holy scriptures, those (that are) able to make you wise’
3.11 Vocatives, headless NPs, and conversion

Except for adjectives with only strong forms, like guþ meins (4x) ‘my God’ (Leyen
1908: 128), D-less weak adjectives occur in the vocative alone, as in saei qiþiþ dwala
(Mt 5:22) ‘he who says, “fool”!’ (Wissmann 1977: 96), or with a noun (GrGS 173; Douse
1886: 225; GE 184). Ratkus (2011: 141) counts 19 examples of this type; cf. (15).
(15) a) atta weiha (Jn 17:11)
‘holy father’ (both words are labeled nom in Snædal)
b) goda skalk (Lk 19:17)
‘good servant’ (goda is labeled nom and skalk acc in Snædal)
c) laisari þiuþeiga (Mk 10:17, Lk 18:18)
‘good teacher’ (þiuþeiga is labeled nom and laisari voc in Snædal)
d) batista Þaiaufeilu (Lk 1:3)
‘most excellent (lit. best) Theophilus’
(batista is labeled nom and Þaiaufeilu voc in Snædal)
e) wulþus þus, weiha guþ (MkS subscript)
‘glory to you, holy God’ (Snædal labels both weiha and guþ nom)
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.
(16) a) fagino, anstai audahafta, frauja

rejoice.2sg.impv grace.dat.sg blessed.nom/voc.sg.f lord
miþ þus, þiuþido þu in qinom (Lk 1:28)
with you bless.PPP.nom/voc.sg.f.wk you in women.dat.pl
‘rejoice, grace-blessed (one), the Lord [be/is]
with you, blessed [are] you among women’
b) 1) jah þu Kafarna[um, þu und hi]min ushauhida (Mt 11:23)

2) jah þu Kafarnaum, þu und himin ushauhido (Lk 10:15)
‘and you, Capernaum, [will] you [be] lifted to heaven?’ (Patrick Stiles, p.c.)
In (16a), wk þiuþido asserts Mary’s uniqueness, underscored by in qinom. It identifies

(cf. aiweins* §3.8), rather than describes (pace Sturtevant 1928b: 200f.). For a parallel,
contrast str þiuþiþs guþ (2Cor 1:3B, Eph 1:3A/B) ‘blessed [be] God’ (God is the object
of praise: Gk. eulogētós ‘to be praised’) with wk þiuþida sa qimanda (Mk 11:9, Lk 19:38,
Jn 12:13) ‘blessed [is] the one coming’. Both are predicative but wk þiuþida ‘blessed’
affirms a property of the coming one (eulogēménos ‘being praised, blessed’).
In (16b-1), str ushauhida is not appositional ‘thou raised to heaven’ (cf. Sturtevant
1945c: 62) but predicative ‘you, Capernaum, the one who are raised’. In (16b-2) wk
ushauhido is expected for direct address and occurs in apposition: ‘you, Capernaum,
the uplifted one’ (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.). On Barteimaiaus blinda, see §8.22.
Weak adjectival forms with a D-word occur 173 times out of 230 (Ratkus 2011: 142)
when the noun head of the NP is null, as in sa usliþa (Mk 2:4) ‘the paralytic’ (cf.
Bernhardt 1885: 94; Mossé 1956: 170).
In the following examples Ratkus (2011) assumes a conversion analysis. If correct,
(17a) shows that conversion does not entail weak inflection, although that can occur,
as in (17b) (= (10a) above). While (17c) is technically ambiguous as to whether -ans is
strong or weak, strong is expected and required by simplicity.
(17) a) taiknins þozei ga-tawida bi siukaim (Jn 6:2)
miracle.acc.pl.f rel.acc.pl.f prfx-do.3sg.pret by sick.dat.pl.m
‘the miracles which he performed for/on the sick’ (Ratkus 2011: 127)
b) jah dauþans us-standand unriurjai (1Cor 15:52A/B)

and dead.nom.pl.m.wk up-stand.3pl incorruptible.nom.pl.m
c) atta ur|raiseiþ dauþans | jah liban ga-taujiþ (Sk 5.2.2ff.)

father raises dead.acc.pl.m and live.inf prfx-make.3sg
‘the father raises the dead and causes (them) to live’
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.
3.12 Comparison of adjectives

Germanic adjectives had positive, comparative, and superlative forms, like good–
better–best. Superlatives are -a- stems on -ist- (or -ost- attested in two words).
Comparatives are built on -iz- or (on -a- bases) -oz- and inflected like -n- stems (fem-
inine -ein-).10
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).
Table 3.5 Gothic adjectival comparison
positive comparative superlative
‘much’ manags* managiza* managists*

‘good’ goþs batiza* batists*
‘bad’ ubils wairsiza *wairsists
‘big’ mikils maiza maists
‘small’ leitils minniza minnists*
‘old’ sineigs — sinista*
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
Table 3.6 Inflection of comparatives
masc neut fem
sg nom maiza batizo maizei

acc usdaudozan maizo maizein
gen minnizins
dat minnizin wairsizin managizein
pl nom batizans
acc managizans maizona managizeins
gen
dat managizam managizeim
‘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).
3.13 The nonpast (incompletive) participle

Gothic has only two participles, nonpast active and preterite. The latter is passive on
transitive bases. This contrasts with the ten in Greek: present and perfect active and
mediopassive, aorist and future active, middle, passive. It is thus no surprise that the
Gothic so-called present participle (PrP) translates Greek participles from all tenses
and a large number of middle-voice forms (Gering 1874: 295ff.).
Gothic PrPs like giband- ‘giving’ are very frequent. In the Gothic corpus available
to him, Metlen (1932: 9–14) counted 2067 PrPs. Apart from the nom sg m -s, which
some consider strong but may be the residue of an -nd- stem (LHE2 227f.), the PrP has
only weak (-n- stem) forms: masc like guma ‘man’ (§3.2), nt like hairto ‘heart’ (§3.3),
fem like managei ‘multitude’ (§3.3).12 In (at least) four instances an -s form arguably
modifies a feminine noun as an archaism (Seebold 1986b; GG 123).
Table 3.7 contains the paradigm of gibands ‘giving’, reconstructed from many
participles.
Table 3.7 The nonpast participle
masc neut fem
sg nom gibands/gibanda* gibando* gibandei*

acc gibandan gibando* gibandein*
gen gibandins* gibandins* gibandeins*
dat gibandin gibandin* gibandein*
pl nom gibandans gibandona* gibandeins*
acc gibandans* gibandona* gibandeins*
gen gibandane* gibandane* gibandeino*
dat gibandam* gibandam* gibandeim*
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).
(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).
3.14 First and second person pronouns

First and second person pronouns (‘I/we’, ‘thou/ye’), being more conservative than
nouns, are inflected for all three numbers but lack gender distinctions and have much
suppletion. See Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Gothic personal pronouns
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
accusative plural dative plural

uns unsis uns 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.
3.15 The third person pronoun

The pronoun is, si, ita ‘he, she, it’ (neutral to deixis; cf. Douse 1886: 230f.; GE 186) is
inflected for all three genders and singular/plural number, as shown in Table 3.10.
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.
Table 3.10 Third person pronoun
masc neut fem
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.
3.16 Interrogative and indefinite pronouns

It is typical for interrogative pronouns to have an indefinite function in conditionals,
negative sentences, and certain other contexts. For Latin, cf. quis ‘who?’ but sī quis ‘if
anyone’, nē quis ‘lest anyone’, etc. This is also the rule in Germanic, as in the following
Old English examples: hwā ‘who?’, hwæt ‘what?’, but gif hwā ‘if anyone’, oððe hwā ‘or
anyone’, þæt hwā ‘that anyone’, ne ( . . . ) hwæt ‘not anything’, būton hwā ‘unless anyone’,
etc. (Miller & Wanner 2011).
A collective particle, such as OE ge- (Goth. ga-), can yield a distributive function, as
in OE hwā ‘who?’ beside ge-hwā ‘each’, hwær ‘where?’ but ge-hwær ‘everywhere’. A gen-
eralizing particle can function in the same way, as in Latin quis-que ‘each’ (quis ‘who?’).
The derivation is the same in Gothic az-uh ‘each’ ( as ‘who?’).15
Basic interrogatives alternate syntactically with indefinites but many indefinites are
derived morphologically.
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
3.17 as, a ‘who, what’
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.
Table 3.11 The Gothic interrogative pronoun
masc neut fem
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.
‘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?’
3.18 azuh ‘each’
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’.
3.19 sa azuh ‘anyone’
The formation of sa- az-uh [the.one-who-also/ever] is relatively comparable to Lat.

quī-cum-que [who-when-also/ever] ‘whosoever’ (Lühr 2000b: 169f.).
Sa azuh followed by izei (2x) or saei (10x) ‘who(so)ever, anyone who’ is paired with
a neuter accusative þata ah þei (2x) ‘what(so)ever’, e.g. sa azuh izei usqimiþ izwis
(Jn 16:2) ‘whoever kills you’, sa azuh saei andnimiþ þata barn (Lk 9:48) ‘whoever
welcomes this child’, þata ah þei wileiþ bidjiþ (Jn 15:7) ‘ask anything you wish’, þata ah
þei bidjaiþ attan (Jn 15:16) ‘whatever you ask the father’.
3.20 þis azuh ‘whosoever’
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.
3.21 þis aduh, þis aruh ‘wherever’
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
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’.
3.22 arjis ‘who, which?’
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).
Table 3.12 The Gothic extended interrogative pronoun
masc neut fem
sg nom ƕarjis ƕarja

acc ƕarjana
gen ƕarjis ƕarjis
dat ƕarjamma
pl nom ƕarjai ƕarjos
acc ƕarjans
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’.
3.23 arjizuh ‘each, every’
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
3.24 ain arjizuh ‘each and every one’
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’.
3.25 ileiks [what-like] ‘of what sort’, elauþs* ‘how great’
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’.
3.26 Pronominal substitutes

Gothic is rich in formations that mean ‘who(so)ever’, ‘everyone who’, and the like. All
of those discussed so far have been - words. But there are other formations that are
more-or-less equivalent semantically.
The frequent swa managai swe [so/as many as] ‘how many soever, whosoever,
all who’ occurs only in the nominative case, e.g. swa managai swe habaidedun
wundufnjos (Mk 3:10) ‘all who had diseases’ and, with swaswe (1x): naiteinos swa
managos swaswe wajamerjand (Mk 3:28) ‘however many blasphemes they (shall)
blaspheme’.
Similar is swa filu swe (7x, 1 dupl, + 2x with auk inserted) ‘as much as’, e.g. swa filu
swe wildedun (Mk 9:13, Lk 6:11, Sk 7.3.9f.) ‘whatever they wished; as much as they
wanted’, swa filu auk swe fauragameliþ warþ (Rom 15:4C) ‘for everything that was
written in the past’.
3.27 Negative polarity

Gothic is rich in negative polarity formations (Mourek 1903; Danielsen 1968; Coombs
1976: 64–71; Masuda 1978: 11–15; Klein 2011: 136). Unlike English (n-ever, n-one, etc.)
and the rest of Germanic, the negator ni remains independent and is not adjoined to
adverbs or indefinite pronouns; cf. ni ( . . . ) ainshun ~ ainshun ( . . . ) ni ‘not anyone, no
one’ (Behaghel 1924: 76; Harbert 2007: 392). The predominant linearization is ni
ainshun compared to all other patterns, suggesting movement to a higher specifier
position when ni follows the polarity word (Eythórsson 1995: 146–53).
Negative polarity items are standardly derived with the suffix -hun (Anderson 1936:
36–43; < *-ku-na LIPP 2.438). From an ‘when’ is made ni ( . . . ) anhun (9x, 1 dupl)
‘not at any time’, often combined with aiw ‘(n)ever’. From nom sg m as was derived
ni ( . . . ) ashun (9x, 1 dupl) ‘not any(one), no one’, e.g. ni ashun izwis gajiukai (Col
2:18B) ‘let no one beguile you’, ni ashun kann as ist sunus (Lk 10:22) ‘no one knows
who the son is’. No other forms of ashun occur.
By far the most frequent negative polarity pronominal is ni ainshun ‘not anyone, no
one’, which occurs only in the singular. Table 3.13 contains the attested forms.
Table 3.13 Negative polarity ainshun
masc neut fem
nom ainshun (39x, 1 dupl) ainhun (4x, 1 dupl) ainohun (2x)

acc ainnohun (8x, 3dupl) ainhun (3x, 1 dupl) ainohun (5x)
ainohun (4x)
gen ainishun (1x)
dat ainummehun (5x, 1 dupl) ainaihun (1x)
ainomehun (1x)
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’.
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).
3.28 Dualistic pronominals

Gothic has no fewer than five pronominals with dual referent: bai ‘both (of a
kind)’, bajoþs ‘both’, aþar ‘which (of two)?’, aþaruh* ‘each of two’, and tweihnai*
‘two each’.
To masculine nom bai (Lk 6:39) ‘both’ there is only acc bans (Eph 2:16A/B), and
dat baim (Lk 7:42); neuter nom ba (Lk 1:6, 7), acc ba (Lk 5:7, Eph 2:14A/B).
Beside nom bajoþs (Lk 5:38, Eph 2:18A/B) ‘both’ there is only dat bajoþum (3x).
As summarized by Douse (1886: 227), bai is used of two of a kind (blind men, debt-
ors, boats, a married couple, groups to be united); bajoþs carries no presupposition of
similarity and is used of pairs that are not linked. Consider the following contrast:
(23) (Zakarias jah Aileisabaiþ) wesun-uh þan garaihta
(Zachariah and Elizabeth) were.3pl-and then righteous. nom.pl.n
ba (Lk 1:6)
both.nom.pl.n
‘Zachariah (m) and Elizabeth (f), and they were both righteous (n pl)’
(24) wein juggata in balgins niujans giutand, jah bajoþs

wine young in wineskins new pour.3pl and both.nom
gafastanda (Lk 5:38)
preserve.3pl.pass
‘they pour young wine in new bottles and both (wine and skins) are preserved’
For aþar ‘which (of two)?’, the only form attested is aþar in three different case
functions: nom sg m (Lk 7:42, Sk 3.1.22f.), nom sg n (Mt 9:5, Mk 2:9, Lk 5:23), and
acc sg n (Phil 1:22B). An example is aþar ist azetizo qiþan (Lk 5:23) ‘which is easier
to say?’. Mk 2:9 is the same but with du before qiþan.
Derived from this is a distributive pronoun aþaruh* ‘each of two’ attested only in
the dat sg m: sweriþa jū | aþaramme[h] usgi|baima bi wairþidai (Sk 5.4.5ff.) ‘we
should now give honor to each (God and the Son) according to merit’.
3.29 Cardinal numbers 93
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’.
3.29 Cardinal numbers

As in Greek, letters of the alphabet also functioned as numerals. Table 3.14 has the
most important numbers with their alphabetic letter symbol.
Table 3.14 Gothic numerals
1 ains 11 ainlif* 30 þrins tiguns (acc)

2 twai 12 twalif 40 fidwor tigjus*
3 þreis* 13 — 50 fimf tigjus*
4 fidwor 14 fidwortaihun (acc) 60 saihs tigjus*
5 fimf 15 fimftaihun* 70 sibuntehund
6 saihs 80 ahtautehund
7 sibun 90 niuntehund
8 ahtau 100 taihuntehund
9 niun 200 twa hunda
10 taihun 20 twai tigjus* 500 fimf hunda
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.).
(25) ·· = þrins tiguns [three tens] ‘30’

·· = saihs tiguns [six tens] ‘60’
· · = taihuntehund [ten tens] ‘100’
· · = taihuntehund jah twans tiguns [and two tens] ‘120’
· · = taihuntehund jah þrins tiguns [and 3 tens] jah þrins [and 3] ‘133’
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’
3.30 Ordinal numbers

The ordinal numbers (Table 3.15) are based on the cardinal from ‘third’ on, and follow
the pattern of the weak adjective.
For fruma (12x, 1 dupl), note fruma Jiuleis (Cal 2) [first Yule] (NWG 116) ‘November’
(Preface xxv). The curious fram fruma (Jn 15:27, 16:4) ‘from the beginning’ (fruma is
not nom, pace Snædal) likely involves a noun frum* (n -a-) (Sturtevant 1953: 59ff.;
NWG 91—both w. lit). Frumei occurs only in the chapter heading to 1Timothy
(ms. B), and a variant frume in the colophon to 1Corinthians (A). Frumo is a hapax
(Gal 4:13A).
Table 3.15 Ordinal numbers
masc nt fem
‘first’ fruma frumo (acc) frumei

‘second’ anþar anþar anþara
‘third’ þridja þridjo (acc) þridjo
‘sixth’ saihsta *saihsto saihsto
‘eighth’ ahtuda* *ahtudo *ahtudo
‘ninth’ *niunda *niundo niundo*
‘tenth’ *taihunda *taihundo taihundo*
‘fifteenth’ *fimfta-taihunda -taihundo* *-taihundo
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’.
3.31 Deictic adverbs

Gothic adverbs that belong to the ‘local case’ system seem to attest the very uneco-
nomical system of deixis in Table 3.16.18
The pronominal deictic oppositions are location–separation/source–goal, as in
traditional grammars (e.g. Grimm 1851: 199–202; Wrede 1920: 372; GGS 171f.;
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
Table 3.16 Deictic adverbs
locative -r allative-þ/-d ablative -þro
jainar ‘there’ jaind ‘thither’ jainþro ‘thence’
locative -a illative -dre perlative -ana

dalaþa ‘below’ jaindre ‘(in)to hindana ‘across,
that place’ beyond’
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).
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.).
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).
3.32 Sentential and VP adverbs

Languages typically distinguish sentential from VP adverbs (Maienborn 2011: 1394–7).
In German, for instance, observe the contrast between sentential klugerweise ‘cleverly’
and VP klug ‘in a clever manner, cleverly’ (Harbert 2007: 373ff., w. lit).
Sentential adverbs are of various kinds. Mood/modal adverbs include speech act
(frankly, honestly), epistemic (probably, obviously), evaluative (surprisingly, fortu-
nately), potential (eventually). There are also aspectual (and other) adverbs, as in
Carthage was destroyed completely ~ Carthage was completely destroyed (Miller 2014b:
79ff., w. lit).
Sentential adverbs can be paraphrased in various ways (see Maienborn 2011).
For evaluative, cf. surprisingly I won ~ it is surprising that I won. Potential: I did it
eventually ~ I managed to do it. Epistemic: clearly she fixed it ~ it is clear that she
fixed it.
Sentential adverbs in Gothic include gatemiba (Sk 2.4.12) ‘fittingly, appropriately’,
unweniggo (1Thess 5:3B) ‘unexpectedly, suddenly’ (Harbert 2007: 370). Sentential
adverbs in Gothic can replace modal verbs (Rousseau 2012: 263ff.).
There can be subtle differences among VP adverbs. With the manner adverb glag-
gwuba (Lk 1:3 ~ glaggwaba Lk 15:8) ‘diligently, meticulously, carefully’, contrast the
degree and resultative adverb glaggwo (1Thess 5:2B) ‘perfectly, accurately, very well’.
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).
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’
i) sniumundo (Mk 6:25, Lk 1:39) ‘hurriedly, with haste’

cmpv sniumundos (Phil 2:28A/B) ‘more eagerly’
j) sprauto (15x, 2 dupl) ‘quickly, speedily’
k) þiubjo (Jn 11:28, 18:20) ‘stealthfully, secretly, privately’
l) þiudisko (§8.44) ‘like a Gentile’
m) ūhteigo (2Tim 4:2A ~ ohteigo B) ‘in season, at the right/convenient time’
un-ūhteigo (2Tim 4:2A/B) ‘out of season, at an inconvenient time’
n) usdaudo (Lk 7:4, 1Tim 4:16B, 2Tim 1:17A/B) ‘earnestly, diligently’
o) ussindo (Philem 16, Bl 1r.3) ‘especially’
p) witodeigo (1Tim 1:8B, 2Tim 2:5B) ‘lawfully’
Among the adverbs in -e are simle (9x, 6 dupl) ‘at one time, once’, swe ‘as; about’ (q.v.
in App.), and sware (15x, 3 dupl) ‘without cause, in vain’ (Bezzenberger 1873: 55–65;
Wood 1923: 105).
Several P words are also adverbs, e.g. afar (Sk 3.3.5) ‘afterwards’, fairra ‘far, away’
(§6.24), faura ‘along, in front’ (Ryder 1949: 14–18; §6.36), ne a ‘near’ (§6.27), etc.
Some adverbs are just the neuter of an old adjective, such as leitil ‘a little’. This is true
of superlatives, though rare, e.g. maist ‘most(ly)’, frumist ‘first’ (Wilmanns 1896: 608).
Schwahn (1873: 16) cites such neuter accusative collocations as þata frumo (Gal 4:13A)
‘first, (for) the first time’, þridjo þata (2Cor 12:14A/B) ‘for the third time’, þata
wiþrawairþo (Gal 2:7A/B) ‘on the contrary’. Filu ‘much, very’, as in filu air (Mk 16:2)
‘very early’, is an old neuter noun (Heidermanns 1996: 258; see filu in App.).
Adverbs made from comparatives end in -is (Bezzenberger 1873: 118–23; Wilmanns
1896: 606), e.g. airis [earlier] (Mt 11:21, Lk 10:13) ‘long ago’, framis (Mk 1:19 ‘farther’,
Rom 13:12A nahts framis galaiþ ‘the night has gone farther’, i.e. ‘is almost over’), hauhis
(Lk 14:10) ‘higher’, mais ‘more; rather’ (§3.12), ne is (Rom 13:11A) ‘nearer’. Adverbs
like allis ‘at all’ are genitive (§4.22), as is the type gistradagis ‘tomorrow’ (§4.21).
Nouns in an oblique case can also function adverbially, e.g. (ni) aiw (acc of aiws*
‘age’) ‘(n)ever’ (§3.27). Likewise compounds of aiw: halis-aiw (Lk 9:39) ‘hardly (ever),
scarcely’, suns-aiw (Mk 17x, Lk 2x, Jn 1x) ‘as soon as, immediately’, an emphatic form
of suns (45x, 2 dupl) ‘immediately’ (§1.6).
CH APTER 4
Case functions
4.1 Adpositions and cases

Despite reams of work on case systems,1 much remains poorly understood, such as
why many languages have a special morphological form for subject, object, indirect
object, and possessor. Other questions involve the filtering processes (syncretisms)
and the fact that most cases have both semantic and syntactic functions (see, e.g.
Kuryłowicz 1964: 31f., 179–206). To declare that there are numerous syncretisms does
not explain why those syncretisms occur, and is no more insightful than labeling
several cases homophonous.
There is an undeniable formal parallelism between adpositions and cases:
adposition case
of genitive
to/for dative
from ablative
with, by instrumental
in, on, at locative
Many semantic relations can be realized as cases, e.g. experiencer: subject they enjoyed
the film, direct object the film amused them, oblique the film was enjoyable to them.
Especially with perception verbs, the experiencer or the stimulus can be subject
(Luraghi 2003: 42f., w. lit). In English, experiencers are frequently subjects, but in
German, especially with predicates of negative experience, mostly dative (Viti 2017).
Contrast I feel sick with Germ. mir ist schlecht [to.me is bad] (Smith 1994; Harbert
2007: 349, w. lit).
All cases contain an aggregate of semantic and syntactic features, some of which are
universal and some specific to each language and culture. Except for subject and object
cases in the older Indo-European languages, these can also be realized as adpositions.
More generally, the nominative and accusative tend to have special properties crosslin-
guistically (Hawkins 2004: 69–71). On differences between the nominative singular and
the rest of the paradigm in the Indo-European languages, see Meier-Brügger (2010: 401).
1 For an overview, see Butt (2006) and for structural case, Baker (2015). Blake (2004) is descriptive and
basic. Anderson (2006) is good for the tradition but rife with idiosyncratic localist accounts. Technical
works include Aldridge (2008), Caha (2009), Pantcheva (2011), Van Gelderen (2011: ch. 5), Baker (2015).

4.2 Cases in Gothic 103
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.
4.2 Cases in Gothic

Eight cases are generally reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European: nominative, voca-
tive, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, ablative, locative. Some add a ninth:
allative (MPIE 2.1). Nominative, accusative, and genitive are structural cases: subject,
direct object, argument of a nominalization. This neat tripartization is interrupted
by semantic functions of the genitive (ownership and general relation), the dative
(possession), and instrumental (means, instrument). The dative is also structural
(indirect object) and the accusative spatial-directional (allative function ‘to, toward’).
The ablative (‘from’) and locative (‘in/at’) are spatial-directional (cf. Josephson 2011: 147).
Sentential subjects bear nominative case, assigned syntactically by a combination of
agreement and epistemic modality (Aygen 2002). Subject is a syntactic category, not
logical or semantic. As mentioned above, the subject is not necessarily an agent, and
nearly any semantic role can appear in more than one case. The subject may or may
not be the topic of the sentence. There is no special case for topics. Rather, topic and
focus are generally indicated by movement of some constituent to the left periphery.
The vocative (case of direct address to the hearer) coalesced with the nominative in
some paradigms or, generally otherwise, has the form of the accusative (§3.2).
Several Germanic languages preserve traces of the instrumental. Gothic has a spe-
cial instrumental form in demonstratives and pronominals, e.g. þe ‘by this’, e ‘with/
by what?’. Syncretism of the instrumental, ablative, and locative with the dative
reduced the number of cases in Germanic to four. At most there are six, if vocative
and instrumental are present. The ablative was preserved only in adverbials, e.g. Goth.
jainþro ‘from there’.
4.3 Agreement and concord

Traditionally, concord was feature matching within the DP/NP, and agreement
involved matching between a verb and at least its subject (only the subject for
104 Case functions
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’
Like sildaleikjandona, Nom pl n hugjandona (Lk 2:44) ‘supposing, thinking’ refers

back to Iosef jah aiþei is (Lk 2:43) ‘Joseph and his mother’. In most IE languages,
the neuter occurs with inanimates of mixed gender, masculine being the default
for mixed males and females (cf. Rabofski 1990: 77ff.; Miller 2000; Wechsler 2009;
Hock 2008, 2009, 2012). In the Greek version of (3), thaumázontes ‘wondering,
marveling’ is nom pl m, as is díkaioi amphóteroi ‘both just’ in (1), and hoi ‘the’ in hoi
dúo ‘the two’ in (2).
Human nouns of neuter gender behave the opposite, e.g. barnilona meina þanzei
aftra fita (Gal 4:19A) ‘my little children (nom pl n) whom (acc pl m) I am again
in labor pains with’ (Eckardt 1875: 48). This is typical of a conceptual gender imposed
on a noun that differs from its grammatical gender, e.g. usdribans warþ unhulþo
(Mt 9:33) ‘the demon (f) was driven out (m)’; þo skohsla bedun ina, qiþandans (Mt 8:31)
‘the demons (n) begged him, saying (m)’. For more examples, see Snædal (2002c: 261f.).
Also typical in (3) above is the singular agreement with postverbal conjoined
subjects (Harbert 2007: 217f.). Since was is not inflected for gender, it is impossible
to know if it agreed with the nearest subject or was neuter, as in (4) (cf. GrGS 203).
4.3 Agreement and concord 105
(4) ei kanniþ wesi nu reikjam ...

comp revealed.nom.sg.n be.3sg.pret.opt now rule(r).dat.pl
so . . . handugei gudis (Eph 3:10A/B)
D.nom.sg.f wisdom.nom.sg.f god.gen.sg
‘that there might be revealed to the rulers . . . the (manifold) wisdom of God’
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
(7) þarei nih malo nih nidwa frawardeiþ (Mt 6:20)

where-rel neg-and moth neg-and rust destroy.3sg
‘where neither moth nor rust destroys’
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’
(9) 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’
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.).
4.4 Subjects with quirky case

Nominative is the case of most subjects but not all subjects are nominative. Quirky
case is the term informally used primarily of subjects in some case other than
nominative.
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
3 Wackernagel (1926: 113–17), Freidin & Sprouse (1991), Smith (1994), Faarlund (2001b, 2004a),
Eythórsson & Barðdal (2005), Harbert (2007: 214), Barðdal (2015).
108 Case functions
(15) þai haitanda sunjus gudis libandins (Rom 9:26A)

they.nom call.3pl.pass son.nom.pl god.gen.sg.m living.gen.sg.m
‘they shall be called sons of the living God’
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.
4.8 Cognate accusative objects
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.
4.9 Accusative of the extent of time and space
The accusative case in the ancient Indo-European languages designated extension

toward and/or attainment of a goal. A related semantic development was the perla-
tive, as in expressions through time and space (cf. Haudry 2011: 135).
It is difficult to delimit the boundary between the internal accusative (§4.8) and the
accusative of space; cf. qemun dagis wig (Lk 2:44) ‘they went a day’s journey’.
The Greek and Latin texts underlying (17) are discussed in Marold (1881a: 156).
(17) 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’
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.
4.10 Accusative of the experiencer
Because experiencers are not prototypical subjects, which are agentive, it is common
crosslinguistically for experiencer verbs to be impersonal (see the papers in Malchukov
& 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)
Verbs in the cognitive domain in a number of languages have the nonexperiencer

argument in the genitive case. This is considered a background theme by Haspelmath &
Michaelis (2008: 161f.). In Gothic, in place of the genitive argument an infinitive also
occurs (see skaman* in §5.17).
While it is possible that experiencer accusatives are quirky subjects (§4.4), there
are no attestations like *ni kar(a) ist ina seina ‘he has no concern for himself ’. With
skaman* (9x, 4 dupl), sik and other reflexive forms are invariably simple (no silba-
‘self ’) and probably not arguments (Berard 1993a: 291).
Accusative of the experiencer is less frequent than the dative in this function
crosslinguistically, but the former occurs also in Icelandic and Lithuanian (Barðdal
2015: 356f.). Gothic, in fact, has some dative experiencers, as in mis galeikaiþ in siukeim
(2Cor 12:10A/B) ‘I take pleasure in infirmities’ (Eythórsson & Barðdal 2005: 832ff.).
4.11 Accusative of respect and adverbial accusative
With the accusative of respect, there is technically a relationship of synecdoche such

that the part of the person affected is in the accusative case. This is infrequent, and
possibly a Greek imitation.
The most quoted Gothic example is gabundans handuns jah fotuns (Jn 11:44) ‘bound
(in respect to) hands and feet’ = Gk. dedeménos toùs pódas kaì tas kheĩras ‘id.’ (pódas
‘feet’ and kheĩras ‘hands’ are acc pl). Despite conjectures on gabundans (Lücke 1876:
9ff.), it is appositional (cf. Beer 1912: 169). Based on ON Egill var bundinn . . . bæði
hendr ok fœtr (Egilssaga 46.10) ‘Egill was bound, both hands and feet’, Sturtevant (1931:
56) argues for a native construction, which also occurs in Hittite (GHL 248).
Another example is ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans (Eph 6:14A/B) ‘having your hips
(loins) girded’, with the hapax uf-gairdan* ‘gird up’. Again, both the Greek and Latin
versions have an accusative of respect.
More usual Gothic (cf. Bernhardt 1885: 78) is the dative of respect, e.g. gaskohai fotum
(Eph 6:15A/B) ‘shod with respect to the feet’ (§4.42). An accusative of respect occurs
here in both Greek (hupodēsámenoi toùs pódas) and Latin (calceātī pedēs).
4.12 Genitive 113
The accusative of respect is typically extended in Germanic to constructions like

jabai a gaskoþ þus (Philem 18) ‘if he has wronged you in any way’, in which a ‘any-
thing’ is more properly an adverbial accusative (cf. GCS 63).
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).
4.13 Adnominal-relational genitive
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)
(29) skaudaraip skohis is (Lk 3:16, Sk 3.4.20)

thong shoe.gen.sg he.gen.sg
‘the thong of the shoe belonging to him’
(30) gabei wulþaus arbjis is (Eph 1:18A/B)
wealth glory.gen.sg inheritance.gen.sg he.gen.sg
‘the riches of the glory of his inheritance’
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).
4.14 Genitive of source
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
4.15 Genitive of the particular
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).
4.16 Genitive of contents and the container
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’.
4.17 Genitive of specification
The genitive of specification (also called characteristic or quality) states a property of

an entity or individual, which is assumed to be permanent. It is optionally modified
by an adjective, as in (33), where the strong adjective is indefinite-specific (Hajnal
1997: 41).
(33) in mannam godis wiljins (Lk 2:14)
in man.dat.pl good.gen.sg.m will.gen.sg.m
‘among people of good will’
(34) ana sunum un-galaubein-ais (Col 3:6A/B, Eph 5:6B)
(up)on son.dat.pl un-belief-gen.sg
‘upon the children of disobedience’ (i.e. ‘characterized by disobedience’)
(35) ƕazuh saei ist sunjos, hauseiþ stibnos meinaizos
each who is truth.gen hear.3sg voice.gen.sg.f my.gen.sg.f
‘each one who is (a person) of truth listens to my voice’ (Jn 18:37)
Other examples: sunum liuhadis (Lk 16:8) ‘sons of the light’, in beista balwaweseins jah
unseleins (1Cor 5:8A) ‘in the leaven of malice and wickedness’, wiljans leikis (Eph 2:3A/B)
‘desires (characteristic) of the flesh’ (glossed in A lustuns ‘lusts’; several MSS of
Ambrosiaster have voluptātēs ‘id.’ for voluntātem ‘will’: Marold 1881a: 145), gards bido
(Lk 19:46) ‘house of prayers’ ~ razn bido (Mk 11:17) ‘id.’, was auk jere twalibe (Mk 5:42)
‘for she was of twelve years’ (i.e. ‘twelve years old’), dauhtar . . . swe wintriwe twalibe
(Lk 8:42) ‘a daughter of about 12 winters’ (see swe in App.). Compare the adjectival
equivalent jah biþe warþ twalibwintrus (Lk 2:42) ‘and when he was twelve years old’.
Examples like in gaiainnan funins (Mt 5:22, Mk 9:47) ‘into the hell of fire’ are sup-
posedly epexegetical genitives, synonymous with the head noun. Gk. toũ purós ‘of the
fire’ (Byz. main text) is a rare addition (cf. Wolfe 2018a). But since a Hebrew word
is involved (cf. Piras 2009: 173), synonymy is contingent on philological knowledge,
and it is just as reasonable to interpret (in gaiainnan) funins as ‘(into the hell) of
(i.e. characterized by) fire’.
118 Case functions
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).
4.18 Genitive of fate
The use of the genitive to specify in a nominalization an inescapable event is given a

separate entry here because it is recognized by Biblical scholars as a Hebraism.8
(36) 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 (doomed) for the slaughter’
[Gk. elogísthēmen hōs próbata sphagẽs;
Lat. aestimātī sumus sīcut ovēs occīsiōnis ‘id.’]
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.
(39) sunus fralustais (Jn 17:12, 2Thess 2:3A)

son destruction.gen.sg
‘the son of perdition’ (i.e. ‘fated to be destroyed’)
[Gk. ho huiòs tẽs apōleíās, Lat. fīlius perdītiōnis ‘id.’]
(40) skula dauþaus ist (Mt 26:66C)
ower death.gen.sg is
‘he is guilty/owing of death’
[Gk. énokhos thanátou estín ‘he is liable to death’, Lat. reus est mortis ‘id.’
~ dat mortī; cf. VL 1972: 199)
This construction is not equivalent to an adjunct infinitive or a nominal in the

dative expressing a goal. The genitive signals an inescapable event rather than a goal
that may or may not be realized.
4.19 Genitive with adjectives
Typical of the early IE languages, Gothic permits NP complements to adjectives

(Harbert 2007: 171ff.). Genitive complements attest several different semantic rela-
tions. Two of the most important are privative ‘free (from)’ and instrumental ‘fill
(with)’ (cf. Schrader 1874: 29–33; Winkler 1896: 350ff.; GCS 169ff., 173; Delbrück 1907:
220–4).
(41) a) framaldrs* (3x, all Lk) ‘advanced in age, very old’
ba framaldra dage seinaize wesun (Lk 1:7) ‘both were along in their days’
b) framaþeis* ‘strange, estranged; stranger’
framaþjai libainais gudis (Eph 4:18A/B) ‘alienated from the life of God’
c) freis ‘free’
frija ist þis witodis (Rom 7:3A) ‘she is free of that law’
d) fulls ‘full’
ahmins weihis fulls (Lk 4:1) ‘full of the holy spirit’
e) inwitoþs [in the law] (1x) ‘subject to the law’ (§7.16)
ak inwitoþs gudis (1Cor 9:21A) ‘but subject to God’s law’
f) laus ‘void, empty’
ni wisands witodis laus gudis (1Cor 9:21A) ‘not being free from God’s
law’
g) saþs* / sads ‘sated, satiated’ (see sads in §8.27)
gairnida sad itan haurne, þoei matidedun sweina (Lk 15:16)
‘he longed to eat (his) fill of carob pods, which the pigs were eating’
h) swes ‘one’s very own’ [used of all persons]; ‘proper, appropriate’
1) swes ize praufetus (Tit 1:12A) ‘their own prophet’
2) þo swesona leikis (2Cor 5:10A/B) ‘the things appropriate to the body’
120 Case functions
i) þarbs ‘needful, needy’

þans þarbans leikinassaus (Lk 9:11) ‘those needful of healing’
j) unkarja (adj or m?) (2x) ‘uncaring, negligent’
ni sijais unkarja þizos in þus anstais (1Tim 4:14B)
‘do not be negligent of the (spiritual) gift in you’
k) unweis (5x) ‘ignorant’
ni auk wiljau izwis unweisans . . . þizos rūnos (Rom 11:25A)
‘for I do not want you (to be) ignorant of this mystery’
l) uswena* ‘out of hope, despairing’
ni waihtais uswenans (Lk 6:35) ‘despairing of nothing’
m) wairþs ‘worthy’
1) nist meina wairþs (Mt 10:37 2x, 10:38) ‘is not worthy of me’
2) allaizos andanumtais wairþ (1Tim 4:9B) ‘worthy of all acceptance’
n) wans* ‘lacking, wanting’
nauh ainis þus wan ist (Lk 18:22) ‘you are still lacking one thing’
o) weihs ‘holy’
weihs fraujins haitada (Lk 2:23) ‘shall be called holy to the Lord’
The genitive with adjectives is related to the genitive as complement to verbs.
Participles inherit the verb’s argument structure, as shown by (42), with the PPP of
galeikinon ‘heal, cure’. For the corresponding verbs see §§4.29, 4.54.
(42) qinons þozei wesun galeikinodos ahmane ubilaize (Lk 8:2)
women who be.3pl.pret cured.nom.pl.f spirit.gen.pl evil.gen.pl.m
‘women who were cured of evil spirits’
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).
4.20 Genitive with time and place words
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.).
The genitive with placewords is misleading because an appositional noun was

used, e.g. in baurg seina Nazaraiþ (Lk 2:39) ‘to their own city (of) Nazareth’,9 witaida
baurg Damaskai (2Cor 11:32B) ‘guarded the city (of) Damascus’, ana Gaulgauþa staþ
(Mk 15:22) ‘to the place (acc) Golgotha (acc)’, which minimally contrasts with the
end of the same verse: þatei ist gaskeiriþ airneins staþs ‘which is clarified “place of
the skull” ’ with airneins ‘skull’ in the genitive.
Examples adduced for a genitive with placewords (e.g. Bernhardt 1882: 2, 1885: 79;
Karpov 2005a: 120f.) typify other kinds of relationships. A favored Gothic construc-
tion substitutes the inhabitants of a place for its name, e.g. in markos Twre jah Seidone
(Mk 7:24) ‘into the borders of the Tyrians and Sidonians’ (GrGS 165; Odefey 1908: 68),
i.e. ‘into Tyre and Sidon’ (but note bi Twra jah Seidona [Mk 3:8] ‘around Tyre and
Sidon’); in landa Akaje (2Cor 11:10B) ‘in the land of the Achaeans’ (i.e. ‘in Achaea’), in
landa Gaddarene (Mk 5:1) ‘to the land of the Gerasenes’ (cf. Douse 1886: 221), in
Saraipta Seidonais (Lk 4:26) ‘to Sarepta (Zarephath), (a village) of Sidon’ (cf. Schrader
1874: 9).
In many instances, the genitive is simply one of inclusion or belonging, as in baurgs
Israelis (Mt 10:23) ‘the cities of Israel’, in baurg Galeilaias (Lk 1:26) ‘into a city of Galilee’,
bairgahein Iudaias (Lk 1:65) ‘the hill country of Judea’.
For other genitival relationships, such as ‘founded by’ or ‘ruled by’, cf. in baurg
Daweidis (Lk 2:11) ‘in the city of David’, in baurg Iudins (Lk 1:29) ‘into a city of
Judah’.
4.21 Genitive of time and direction
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).
4.22 Adverbial genitive
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.).
4.23 Subjective and objective genitive
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’.
second cannot. Rather, the second is a nominalization of Serena won. It is not a

given that the two share the same morphological form, and in many languages
they do not. In most of the older Indo-European languages, including Gothic, the
subject and object of a nominalization share the same case as the genitive of
belonging. With 1st and 2nd person pronouns, the subjective and objective geni-
tives are supplied by the relational (possessive) adjective, a distribution shared in
part with Latin. All of these constructions are very frequent in Gothic (GrGS 212f.;
GCS 162–7, 180–6).
Gabeins ‘of wealth’ is subjective in afmarzeins gabeins (Mk 4:19) ‘the deceitfulness
of ’, because the wealth causes deceit. Likewise, izwaraizos frijaþwos airkniþa (2Cor
8:8A; B has friaþwos) ‘the sincerity of your love’ contains a subjective genitive, because
the underlying idea is that your love is sincere.
Hanins in faur hanins hruk (Mt 26:75+C) ‘before the rooster’s crowing’ is equivalent
to faurþize hana hrukjai (Mk 14:72) ‘before the rooster (should) crow’, and is therefore
a subjective genitive (cf. Karpov 2005a: 163).
With 1st and 2nd person pronouns, a subjective genitive has the adjectival form,
e.g. friaþwa meina (1Cor 16:24B; A frijaþwa) ‘my love’. Note also (46).
(46) in þiudangardja sunaus friaþwos seinaizos (Col 1:13B)
in kingdom.acc son.gen.sg love.gen.sg.f his.own:gen.sg.f
‘into the kingdom of the son of his love’ (i.e. ‘the son that he loves’)
[Gk. eis t n basileíān toũ huioũ tẽs agápēs autoũ]
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
(49) fauragaggi gudis anstais (Eph 3:2B)

management god.gen grace.gen.sg
‘the dispensation of God’s grace’
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’
4.24 Partitive genitive
A standard partitive involves a part-whole relationship, in which the whole to which

the part belongs is in the genitive case. Simple examples are þairko neþlos (Mk 10:25,
Lk 18:25) ‘eye of a needle’, skufta haubidis seinis (Lk 7:38) ‘with the hair of her head’,
Nazaraiþ Galeilaias (Mk 1:9) ‘Nazareth of Galilee’.
Partitive also refers to the extent of participation. If only a part of something is
affected, the word goes into the genitive or a related prepositional construction,
depending on the degree to which the object is quantified or affected, or the event is
quantified. Contrast Fr. manger le pain ‘eat the bread’ (not necessarily all of it, under-
specified for quantification) versus quantified manger du pain ‘eat (part/some of the)
bread’.12 In Gothic the latter is realized in the genitive (Bernhardt 1870b; Winkler
1896: 326ff.; Van der Meer 1901: 131ff.; Delbrück 1907: 205f.).
(52) jabai ƕas matjiþ þis hlaibis (Jn 6:51)
if indf.nom.sg.m eat.3sg D.gen.sg.m loaf.gen.sg.m
‘if anyone eats (of) this bread’
(53) þis hlaibis matjai jah þis stiklis drigkai (1Cor 11:28A)
D.gen bread.gen eat.3sg.opt and D.gen cup.gen drink.3sg.opt
‘let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup’
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).
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)
4.25 Partitive with numerals and nouns

The adnominal partitive genitive is very frequent in Gothic, especially with words
denoting indefinites and some sort of quantity.
Numerals formed with tigjus*, -tehund, hunda ‘hundreds’, and þūsundi ‘thousand’
take a partitive genitive (Schrader 1874: 22ff.; Winkler 1896: 321ff.; GCS 125ff.):13
(56) taihuntehund lambe (Lk 15:4)
hundred sheep.gen.pl
‘a hundred sheep’
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’)
4.26 Partitive with adjectival quantifiers

A frequent use of the partitive genitive is with words denoting a quantity, such as
‘some’, ‘all’, ‘each’, and the like (Schrader 1874: 18–21, 27ff.; Winkler 1896: 321ff.).
All- ‘all’ can modify a noun attributively, e.g. alla so managei (Mk 12:37) ‘the
entire crowd’, ana allai aglon unsarai (2Cor 1:4B) ‘in all our tribulation’, fiands unsarai
allai (Neh 6:16) ‘all our enemies’, allai þai hausjandans (Lk 1:66, 2:47) ‘all those listen-
ing’. The partitive structure is also frequent, e.g. all bagme ‘all of trees’ (gen pl). There
is no gender agreement between all (neuter) and the partitive word in the genitive.
See (58).
(58) af allamma bisauleino (2Cor 7:1A)
from all.dat.sg.n defilement.gen.pl.f
‘from all defilements’
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).
(60) a) sa smalista apaustaule (1Cor 15:9A)

D.nom.sg.m smallest.nom.sg.m.wk apostle.gen.pl.m
‘the least of the apostles’
b) waurstwja skal frumist akrane andniman (2Tim 2:6B)
worker must first.acc.sg.n fruit.gen.pl.n receive.inf
‘the worker must receive the first of the fruits’
(61) sums þize skalke (Jn 18:26)
some.nom.sg.m D.gen.pl.m slave.gen.pl.m
‘one of the servants’
[Gk. heĩs ek tõn doúlōn ‘one from the slaves’, Vulg. ūnus ex servīs ‘id.’]
(62) hausidedun þize Fareisaie sumai þata (Jn 9:40)
hear.3pl.pret D.gen.pl.m Pharisee.gen.pl some.nom.pl.m D.acc.sg.n
‘some of the Pharisees heard this’
[Gk. kousan ek tõn Pharisaíōn, lit. ‘(some) of the Pharisees heard’, Lat.
audiērunt ex Pharisaeīs ‘id.’]
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.’]
4.27 Partitive with pronouns

When pronouns take a partitive genitive, the pronoun agrees with the partitive in
gender (Schrader 1874: 18–22; Winkler 1896: 321).14
(64) ni ainshun praufete (Lk 4:24)
neg any.nom.sg.m prophet.gen.pl.m
‘not any prophets’
[Gk. oudeìs proph tēs ‘no prophet’, Lat. nēmō prophēta ‘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
(65) ƕarjammeh habandane gibada (Lk 19:26)

each.dat.sg.m having.gen.pl.m give.3sg.pass
‘it is given to each of (those) who has’
[Gk. pantì tõi ékhonti doth setai, Lat. omnī habentī dabitur ‘to all having . . . ’]
(66) ƕo mizdono habaiþ (Mt 5:46)
what.acc.sg.f recompense.gen.pl.f have.2pl
‘what reward (will) you have?’
[Gk. tína misthòn ékhete, Lat. quam mercēdem habēbitis ‘what reward . . . ’]
(67) jabai gafāhaidau manna in ƕizai missadede
if catch.3sg.pret.opt man.nom.sg in any.dat.sg.f misdeed.gen.pl.f
‘if a person is caught in any transgressions’ (see missa-deþs* §7.3) (Gal 6:1A/B)
[Gk. . . . én tini parapt mati, Lat. . . . in aliquō dēlictō ‘in any transgression’]
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).
4.28 Partitive with negation

A partitive genitive occurs in Gothic with neg ni. There are adnominal as well
as adverbal examples. The adnominal type is especially common with negated
indefinites:
(68) ni-h allis ist ƕa fulginis (Mk 4:22)
neg-and at.all is indf:nom.sg.n hidden.gen.sg.n
‘and there is not anything at all hidden’ (lit. ‘not anything of hidden’)
(69) ni waiht þannu nu wargiþos (Rom 8:1A)
neg thing hence now condemnation.gen.sg
‘there is therefore now no condemnation’ (lit. ‘nothing of condemnation’)
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’)
(71) ni þau habaidedeiþ frawaurhtais (Jn 9:41)

neg then have.3pl.pret.opt sin.gen.sg
‘then you would have no sin’
(72) þanamais arbaide ni ainshun mis gansjai (Gal 6:17B)
henceforth trouble.gen.pl neg any.nom.sg.m I.dat cause.3sg.opt
‘henceforth let no one cause me trouble’
(73) ni was im rūmis in stada þamma (Lk 2:7)
neg was they.dat room.gen.sg in place.dat.sg D.dat.sg.m
‘there was no room (lit. not of room) for them in the place/stead’
[Gk. ouk ẽn autoĩs tópos en tõi katalúmati ‘there was not for them place in the inn’]
(74) jabai . . . bileiþai qenai jah barne ni bileiþai (Mark 12:19)
if . . . leave.behind wife.dat and child.gen.pl neg leave.behind.3sg.opt
‘if a man should leave behind a wife and not leave behind any children’
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’
15 The Lithuanian translation of (73) is as in (i) (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.).

(i) nes jiems ne-buvo vietos užeigoje
because they.dat neg-was room.gen stead/tavern.loc
‘as there was no room for them at the tavern’
130 Case functions
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’.
4.29 Adverbal genitive
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
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.).
4.31 Dative absolute
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
(84) at hilpandam jah izwis bi uns (2Cor 1:11A/B)

at helping.dat.pl and you.dat.pl concerning us.acc
‘with you also helping on our behalf ’
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.
4.32 Dative of reference
A standard dative of reference indicates the individual or entity with reference to

whom or which a state exists or an action occurs, as in (86).
(86) mis all kniwe biugiþ (Rom 14:11)
I.dat all knee.gen.pl bow.3sg
‘every knee will bow (with reference) to me’
This rubric is sometimes extended to adjuncts of certain verbs, such as thinking:

þāhta sis eleika wesi so goleins (Lk 1:29) ‘thought to herself (pondered, wondered)
what kind of greeting this was’; þai mitodedun sis (Mk 2:8) ‘they reasoned to them-
selves’, for Gk. en heautoĩs ‘in themselves’ (Thomason 2011: 195).
The referential function continues to exist marginally and colloquially in English
expressions like I’ll get me some. For Gothic, cf. nim þus bokos (Lk 16:6, 7) ‘take your-
self the bill (promissory note)’. Greek uses a pronominal genitive (déxai sou tò grámma
‘take your note’) and the Vulgate an adjectival form (accipe cautiōnem tuam 6, accipe
litterās tuās 7). While the Vetus Latina texts use different words for the ‘bill’, they are
consistent with forms of tuus ‘your’ (cf. VL 1976: 185). In short, Gothic is alone among
extant sources with a dative in this example.
Especially interesting is (87), with a picturesque rendering of Gk. h rmēsen ‘rushed’
(Douse 1886: 216f.); cf. impetum fēcit ‘made a thrust’ in codd. Bezae and Brixianus
(Marold 1882: 51f.; VL 1972: 46).
(87) run gawaurhtedun sis alla so hairda (Mt 8:32)
run effect.3pl.pret refl.dat all.nom.sg.f D.nom.sg.f herd.nom.sg.f
‘the entire herd (of pigs) made themselves a run’
4.30–43 Dative 135
In eight of its nine occurrences, a referential dative accompanies the interjection

wai ‘woe’: wai þus (4x) ‘woe to you’, wai izwis (3x) ‘woe to you (pl)’, wai þaim qiþu-
haftom (Mk 13:17) ‘woe to pregnant women’ (cf. Winkler 1896: 20).
Nouns like wulþus ‘glory’ are frequently accompanied by a referential type of dative,
e.g. þammei wulþus du aiwam (Gal 1:5B) ‘to whom [be] glory for ever’, wulþus in
hauhistjam guda (Lk 2:14) ‘glory to God in the highest’, wulþus þus (MkS subscript)
‘glory to you’, awiliuþ guda (1x) ~ awiliud guda (2x) ~ guda awiliuþ (1Cor 15:57A
~ -liud B) ‘thanks [be] to God’, ansts izwis (2Cor 1:2B, Eph 1:2A/B, Gal 1:3B, 2Thess
1:2A/B) ‘grace to you’, etc. (Bernhardt 1885: 86; Winkler 1896: 19f.). Note also saurga
meina allaim aikklesjom (2Cor 11:28B) ‘my concern for all the churches’ vs. Greek with
a gen pāsõn tōn ekklēsiõn ‘of all the churches’ (Kapteijn 1911: 268).
The referential dative is a frequent construction in Gothic. Van der Meer (1901:
82ff., 86) cites over a hundred examples.
Often considered a subclass is the dative of interest, indicating the beneficiary or
the opposite. The dative marks the individual or entity for whose benefit or to whose
detriment an event occurs or a state exists (dativus commodi aut incommodi ‘dative
of advantage or disadvantage’), and thus has a benefactive or malefactive function
(cf. Pinkster 2015: 892f.). Potential examples include (88) and (89).
(88) garaihtamma nist witoþ satiþ (1Tim 1:9A ~ . . . witoþ nist . . . B)
righteous.dat.sg.m neg.is law set.nom.sg.n
‘the law is not made for a righteous (person)’
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’]
4.33 Point of view dative
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.
4.34 Dative of comparison
In comparisons of inequality, which differ crosslinguistically (Beck 2011: 1382–6), case

languages of different typologies generally employ, besides a clause with a particle, a
case for the second NP compared (Weihrich 1869; Small 1924; Stassen 1984). Typical
of V-final languages, PIE supposedly used the ablative (Stassen 1985; Hettrich 2007),
but V-final Hittite uses the dative-locative (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 273ff.). In
Gothic, the standard of comparison is dative (Köhler 1864: 50f.; Delbrück 1907: 200).
Gothic examples appear in (92). More can be found in Winkler (1896: 116ff.), GCS
99, and Baldauf (1938: 12–15).
(92) Dative of the standard of comparison
a) frodozans sunum liuhadis (Lk 16:8) ‘wiser/shrewder than sons of the light’
b) maiza imma (Lk 7:28, Mt 11:11) ‘greater than him’
c) nih apaustaulus maiza þamma sandjandin sik (Jn 13:16) ‘nor [is] the apostle
greater than (the one) sending him’ (§9.5)
d) ibai þu maiza is attin unsaramma Abrahama (Jn 8:53) ‘are you greater than
our father Abraham?!’
e) nist hindar uns maizo fimf hlaibam (Lk 9:13) ‘we have no more than five
loaves’ (§6.25)
f) managizo praufetau (Mt 11:9) ‘more than a prophet’
g) þata managizo þaim (Mt 5:37) ‘what (is) more than these’
4.30–43 Dative 137
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).
(94) nibai managizo wairþiþ izwaraizos garaihteins

unless more.nom.sg.n be(come).3sg your.gen.sg.f righteousness.gen.sg.f
þau þize bokarje jah Fareisaie (Mt 5:20)
than D.gen.pl.m scribe.gen.pl.m and Pharisee.gen.pl.m
‘unless there will be more of your righteousness
than (of that) of the scribes and Pharisees’
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.):
(95) a) azitizo ist ulbandau þairh þairko neþlos galeiþan

easier.n is camel.dat.sg through hole needle.gen.sg go.inf
þau gabigamma in þiudangardja gudis galeiþan (Mk 10:25)
than rich.dat.sg.m in kingdom.acc god.gen go.inf
‘it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than (it is) for a rich person to go into the kingdom of God’
138 Case functions
b) þamma mahteigin ufar all taujan maizo þau

D.dat.sg.m able.dat.sg.m.wk over all do.inf more than
bidjam (Eph 3:20A/B)16
ask.1sg
‘to the one (who is) able to do over and above more than we ask’
4.35 Dative of degree
The dative is used, generally in conjunction with comparatives, to express degree of

difference (Bernhardt 1885: 91; Delbrück 1907: 185). See (96).
(96) man auk ni waihtai mik minnizo gataujan þaim
think.1sg for neg thing.dat me less.acc.sg.n do.inf. they.dat
‘I consider myself to do nothing (lit. by nothing) less than those’ (cf. §9.26) (2Cor 11:5B)
That this is an instrumental relation is suggested by e ‘by what’ with a comparative

in e managizo taujiþ (Mt 5:47) ‘what more are you doing?’ (Bernhardt 1885: 89;
Baldauf 1938: 47).
Waihtai also occurs with implied comparatives, as in ni waihtai botida (Mk 5:26)
‘having been improved by nothing’, i.e. ‘she improved not at all’, i.e. ‘she became
no better’.
For waihtai in other contexts, observe (97).
(97) galisiþ þos aflif|nandeins draus|nos ei waihtai ni fraqistnai (Sk 7.4.14–17)
‘gather up the remaining fragments that nothing get lost’ (cf. Jn 6:12)
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.).
4.36 Dative of instrument and means
As a reflex of the instrumental case in Indo-European, the dative in Germanic is the

case for expressing accompaniment, instrument, means, manner, path, and several
other relations (cf. Meier-Brügger 2010: 404ff.).
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
Dressing in something was conceptualized as an instrumental relationship, as

shown by the use of instrumental e ‘with/by what’ in e wasjaima (Mt 6:31) ‘with
what are we to be clothed?’ (GrGS 231f.; Delbrück 1907: 116, 156; Tichy 1980: 15).
In (101), the Gothic dative expresses the instrument with which John was clothed
(GCS 107f.).
(101) was . . . Iohannes ga-wasiþs taglam ulbandaus (Mk 1:6)
was . . . John prfx-dressed.nom.sg.m hair.dat.pl camel.gen.sg
‘and (then) John was dressed in camel’s hair [clothes]’
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
(104) us-flaugidai winda ƕammeh laiseinais (Eph 4:14A)

out-blown.nom.pl.m wind.dat.sg each.dat.sg.m doctrine.gen.sg
‘blown off course by every wind of (shifting) doctrine’
[Gk. peripherómenoi pantì anémōi tẽs didaskalíās]19
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).
4.37 Dative of time
Time is typically conceptualized in terms of space (Haspelmath 1997; Luraghi 2003:

320). Gothic replaced the purely locational dative with prepositional constructions.
Only residues of the locational dative remain with certain verbs (§4.43; Bernhardt
1880: 78) and in gapped strings, such as in gaqumþim jah waihstam plapjo (Mt 6:5) ‘in
the synagogues and (on) the corners of streets’ (cf. Peeters 1976).
As a reflex of the Indo-European locative (Meier-Brügger 2010: 408f.; pace Delbrück
1907: 239), expressions involving temporal location are generally in the dative in
Gothic (GrGS 240; Piper 1874: 25; Winkler 1896: 68–76; cf. GCS 95f.), e.g. þizai eilai
(Lk 2:38) ‘at that moment’, himma daga (Mt 6:30, Lk 2:11, 4:21, 19:5, 9) [on this day]
‘today’, sabbato daga (Mk 1:21, 2:23, 3:2) ‘on the sabbath day’, naht jah daga (Mk 4:27,
2Thess 3:8A/B, 2Tim 1:3A) ‘night and day’, þridjin daga (Mk 9:31, 10:34, Lk 9:22, 18:33,
1Cor 15:4A) ‘on the third day’, þamma frumistin daga azwme (Mk 14:12) ‘on the first
day of (the Festival of) Unleavened Bread’, wintrau (Mk 13:18) ‘in (the) winter’.
Since this is a locatival expression it is not surprising to find it in competition with
the P in (cf. Bernhardt 1882: 5f.), e.g. in þizai eilai (Lk 20:19) ‘at that hour’, in þamma
daga (Lk 9:37) ‘on this (next) day’, in spedistin daga (Jn 6:40, 7:37, 12:48) ‘on the last
day’, in spedistaim dagam (2Tim 3:1A/B, 1Tim 4:1A ~ spidistaim B) ‘in the last days’, in
sabbato daga (Lk 6:7) ‘on the sabbath day’ ~ in sabbato (Jn 7:22, 23 2x) ‘on the sabbath’,
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).
4.38 Dative of possession
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
(107) nist izwis brakja wiþra leik jah bloþ

neg.is you.dat.pl struggle.nom.sg against body and blood
‘for you do not have a struggle against flesh and blood’ (Eph 6:12A/B)
[Greek MSS are split between hēmĩn ‘to us’ (incl. Byz.) and hūmĩn ‘to you’]
(108) ni was im barne (Lk 1:7)

neg was they.dat child.gen.pl
‘they had no children’
[Gk. ouk ẽn autoĩs téknon (not was to.them child.nom.sg)]
(109) twai dulgis skulans wesun dulgahaitjin sumamma

two debt.gen ower.nom.pl were.3pl creditor.dat.sg some.dat.sg.m
‘a certain creditor had two debtors’ (Lk 7:41)
[lit. ‘two owers of debt were to/for some creditor’]
[Gk. dúo khreōpheilétai ẽsan daneistẽi tiní—the same construction]
(110) ƕa uns jah þus (Mt 8:29, Mk 1:24, Lk 4:34)

what we.dat and you.dat.sg
‘what [is] to us and to you?’; ‘what do we and you have?’
(i.e. ‘what do we have to do with you?’) (Balg 1891: 240; Berard 1993a: 211)
As in all the adjacent Indo-European languages, this construction was in competi-

tion with a verb ‘have’ (Goth. haban, less often aigan*) plus accusative object for alien-
able and temporary possession plus other semantic relations. For instance, beside
(105) there are saurga habaid (Jn 16:21) ‘(she) has sorrow’, saurga habaiþ (Jn 16:22) ‘you
have sorrow’, saurga ni habau (2Cor 2:3A/B) ‘(that) I not experience sorrow’. Beside
(108) there are barna aiþþau barne barna habai (1Tim 5:4B) ‘(if) she have children or
children’s children’ and Abraham twans aihta sununs (Gal 4:22A/B) ‘Abraham had two
sons’. Haban is used of inalienable possession (§4.39), e.g. habands handu (Mk 3:1)
‘having a (withered) hand’, twos handuns habandin (Mk 9:43) ‘having two hands’,
twans fotuns habandin (Mk 9:45) ‘having two feet’. This does not entail that the con-
structions were identical in Gothic, where it is impossible to test the range of contexts
in which overlap was or was not permitted. Haban is the most frequent dative replace-
ment; aigan* is preferred for animals and kin, and does not occur with body parts
(Häusler 2004).
Personal relations are normally realized in the genitive or a possessive adjective
(§4.13). Ne undja ‘neighbor’ is no exception, as shown by acc sg ne undjan
þeinana (5x) ‘your neighbor’, but in one passage a dative pronoun is used: as ist
mis ne undja (Lk 10:29) ‘who is my neighbor?’. Greek has genitival mou [of me]
‘my’ and the Vulgate adjectival meus ‘my’. Several Vetus Latina manuscripts,
including cod. Bezae, have dat mihi ‘to me’ (VL 1976: 122), matching the Gothic
construction.
144 Case functions
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
4.39 Dative of inalienable possession
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’
b) us-þwoh fotuns ize (Jn 13:12)

‘he finished washing their (gen) feet’
(116) a) ga-salboda fotuns Iesua (Jn 12:3)

‘she anointed Jesus’ (dat) feet’
b) ga-salboda fotuns meinans (Lk 7:46)

‘she anointed my (gen-adj) feet’
(117) a) draus imma du fotum (Jn 11:32)

‘she fell at his (dat) feet’
b) draus du fotum is (Mk 7:25)

‘she fell at his (gen) 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
4.40 Dative of price
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’
4.41 Dative with adjectives
Adjectives of several semantic types can be complemented by a DP/NP in the dative

case. Tough adjectives (easy, simple, hard, difficult, good, bad, nice) are ambiguous
between modifying a DP/NP or describing the effort involved in an activity, gener-
ally expressed by an infinitive (Miller 2002: 207–19, w. lit). With so-called dative and
infinitive, the dative belonged to the matrix clause, as in English until around the
second half of c14 (Miller 2010: i. 136–40, ii. 248–52). Material adjectives ( fit, avail-
able, etc.) denote a one-place property of an individual and make up a second class.
A third are evaluative adjectives, which characterize a person’s behavior or attitude
in terms of the speaker’s judgment (Landau 2010: 206). An adjective can occur with
or without an event variable. To use Landau’s example, in John was rude, John is the
external argument, projected from rude. With the event variable, in John was rude to
Mary, Mary is a goal argument of the eventive predicate: x is rude to y in e[vent]
(Landau 2010: 215f.). Minor classes, such as equatives (like, similar to, etc.), are also
represented.
Since the adjectives in this section belong to several semantic types, the dative can
represent abstract goal (point of view, interest, etc.), instrument/sociative, or source
(Köhler 1865: 42ff.; GCS 80f.; Delbrück 1907: 199; complete list in Winkler 1896: 22–5).
(120) a) aglus* ‘difficult’ (1x)
aiwa aglu ist þaim hugjandam afar faihau in þiudangardja gudis galeiþan
(Mk 10:24) ‘how hard is it for those being disposed to wealth to enter the
kingdom of God?’ (parsed in §6.4)
b) ansteigs ‘gracious, beneficent’ (1x)
ansteigs was uns (Eph 1:6A/B) ‘he was gracious to us’
c) azetizo ‘easier’ (4x ~ azitizo 1x)
azitizo ist ulbandau þairh þairko neþlos galeiþan (Mk 10:25)
‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle’
d) batizo ‘better’
þata izwis batizo ist (2Cor 8:10A/B) ‘that is better for you’
e) brūks ‘useful, profitable, advantageous’ (7x, 3 dupl)
þatei mis brūk sijai (1Cor 10:33A) ‘what may be advantageous to me’
f) gadofs* ‘fitting, appropriate’ (6x, 1 dupl)
þatei gadob ist qinom (1Tim 2:10AB) ‘which is fitting for women’
4.30–43 Dative 147
g) galeiks ‘like’ (17x, 1 dupl, + Bl 2r.6, 2v.19)25

wairþa galeiks þamma hauhistin (Bl 2r.6) ‘I shall become like the highest’
galeikai sind barnam (Lk 7:32) ‘they are like children’
h) gamains ‘common; sharing’ (6x)
gamains þizai waurhtai (Rom 11:17A) ‘sharing the root’
i) ganohs* ‘sufficient, enough’ (7x)
ni ganohai sind þaim (Jn 6:7) ‘are not enough for them’
j) goþs ‘good’ (freq)
is gods is þaim unfagram (Lk 6:35) ‘he is good to the ungrateful’
k) hafts* ‘bound’ (1x) [a passive adjective]
þaim liugom haftam anabiuda (1Cor 7:10A) ‘those bound by wedlock
I command’
l) hulþs ‘merciful’ (1x)
hulþs sijais mis (Lk 18:13) ‘be merciful to me’ (§9.51)
m) ibns* ‘like, equal’ (4x)
ibnans aggilum (Lk 20:36) ‘equal to the angels’
n) kunþs ‘known’ (7x, 3 dupl)
was kunþs þamma gudjin (Jn 18:15, 16) ‘was known to the (high) priest’
o) liufs* ‘dear’ (24x, 15 dupl)
sunu aigands liubana sis (Mk 12:6) ‘having a son dear to himself ’
p) mahteigs ‘possible’
allata mahteig þamma galaubjandin (Mk 9:23) ‘all is possible to the
believer’
q) modags ‘angry’ (2x)
modags broþr seinamma (Mt 5:22) ‘angry with his brother’
r) raþizo ‘easier’ (1x) (*raþs ‘easy’)
raþizo . . . ist ulbandau þairh þairko neþlos þairhleiþan <þairþleiþan>
(Lk 18:25) ‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle’
s) skulds ‘lawful’ (28x, 4 dupl)26
þanzei ni skuld ist matjan niba ainaim gudjam
which neg lawful is eat.inf if.not one.dat.pl.m priest.dat.pl
‘which (hlaibans ‘loaves’) it is not lawful but for priests alone to eat’ (Mk 2:26)
t) swers ‘honored, esteemed, valued’ (3x, 1 dupl)
saei was imma swers (Lk 7:2) ‘who was precious to him’
u) swikunþs ‘manifest’ (17x, 7 dupl)
guda swikunþai sijum (2Cor 5:11A/B) ‘we are manifest to God’
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
v) unkunþs ‘unknown’ (2x, 2 dupl)

unkunþs . . . aikklesjom (Gal 1:22A/B) ‘unknown . . . to the churches’
w) unmahteigs ‘impossible’ (13x)
nist unmahteig guda ainhun waurde (Lk 1:37) ‘nothing is impossible for
God’ [lit. ‘there is not anything of words impossible for God’]
x) wans* ‘lacking, wanting’ (6x, 1 dupl)
ainis þus wan ist (Mk 10:21, Lk 18:22) ‘you lack one thing’
y) wiþrawairþs* ‘opposite; facing’ (4x, 1 dupl)
haim þo wiþrawairþon iggqis (Mk 11:2) ‘the village opposite you’
The hapax ufjo ‘superfluous’ is variously classified but is probably an adverb
(Schwahn 1873: 61). It behaves like the adjectives but takes a du infinitive (possibly
triggered by the Greek articular infinitive §9.24): ufjo mis ist du meljan izwis (2Cor
9:1A/B) ‘it is superfluous for me to write to you’ (Gk. perissón moí estin tò gráphein
hūmĩn ‘it is redundant/excessive for me to write to you’).
Andaneiþa* (1Thess 2:15B) ‘hostile’ is sometimes included here, but is probably a
masculine noun: allaim mannam andaneiþans sind ‘they are foes to all people’.
For other nouns occasionally found with the dative see §4.38 (end).
4.42 Dative of respect
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).
4.43 Dative verb complements
A number of verbs take a dative complement either as a lexical (idiosyncratic) feature

or because of a semantic role, such as recipient, benefactive/interest, or instrument.
In some instances idiomaticity obscures the original semantic function. With imper-
sonal þugkjan* ‘think’, for instance, the original meaning was ‘seems to (someone)’ as
an experiencer dative (Smith 1994: 728); cf. a izwis þugkeiþ (Mt 26:66C, Mk 16:64)
‘what do you think?’.
Where passives are attested, what would be a dative complement in the active is
(with few exceptions) nominative in the passive (Köhler 1864: 35ff.; Bernhardt 1885:
102f.; Douse 1886: 218f.; GCS 86f.; Vogel 2000). Although the so-called personal pas-
sive is said to be Greek prompted (Behaghel 1924: 211; Harbert 1978: 96), it is unusual
in Germanic for anything but structural accusatives to show up as nominative sub-
jects of a passive, as is true of double object verbs in Gothic (§4.55). This is a crucial
distinction that is obscured by Vogel (2000). The Gothic regularity implies that as
long as structural case is not exhausted (as it apparently is with double object verbs),
it remains available for the subject of passive sentences.
The main verbs with dative complements follow, some restricted to personal objects
(Köhler 1864: 12–17, 20–35; Piper 1874: 1–22, 26–9; Balg 1891: 243–56; Winkler 1896:
4–18, 30–41, 97–107; GCS 3; Delbrück 1907: 190f.).
Af-skiuban* (2x, 1 dupl) ‘reject’: ibai afskauf guþ arbja seinamma (Rom 11:1A) ‘surely
God did not reject his people, did he?’; cf. us-skiuban* (1x) ‘thrust out’: uskubun imma
(Lk 4:29) ‘they drove him out’.
Af-wairpan (4x, 1 dupl) in the sense of ‘cast off ’ (1x): afwairpands wastjai seinai
(Mk 10:50) ‘throwing his cloak aside’.
Ana-biudan* (40x, 4 dupl) ‘command’, e.g. fram þamma daga ei anabauþ mis
(Neh 5:14) ‘from the day that he commanded me’.
Andbahtjan (22x, 5 dupl) ‘serve’ takes personal complements in the dative, e.g.
andbahtei mis (Lk 17:8) ‘serve me’.
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):
(122) þugkeiþ im auk ei . . . andhausjaindau (Mt 6:7)

seem.3sg they.dat.pl for comp . . . heed.3pl.opt.pass
‘for they think that . . . they will be heard’
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.
4.44 Verbs with semantically determined case variability
Selection of dative or accusative complements for some verbs is contingent on seman-

tic differences. This is not an uncommon situation, and Gothic has about a dozen
verbs that behave thus. Examples follow (cf. GE 173).
Ana-haitan* (ana = Gk. epí Leont’ev 1965: 255f.) ‘invoke, call on’ + acc: ik weitwod
guþ anahaita (2Cor 1:23A/B) ‘I call on God as my witness’; ‘reprimand’ + dat: un|selein
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
þize ana|haitandane im (Sk 8.2.10ff.) ‘the wickedness of those reprimanding them’

(GCS 189).
And-haitan (16x, 1 dupl) ‘declare; confess; thank’ + dat, e.g. andhaita þus (Lk 10:21,
Rom 15:9C) ‘I (will) confess to you, I (will) thank/praise you’; ‘acknowledge’ + acc:
jabai as ina andhaihaiti Xristu (Jn 9:22) ‘if anyone acknowledged him (to be) the
Christ’.
Fraþjan ‘think’ [+acc], ‘focus on, realize, understand’ [+dat] (cf. Sturtevant 1932:
55f.; see also Bernhardt 1880: 77ff.), e.g. airþeinaim fraþjand (Phil 3:19A/B) ‘they focus
on earthly (things)’ ei ni froþeina imma (Lk 9:45) ‘that they would not understand it’
(Gk. hína m aísthōntai autó [acc] ‘id.’). Instead of a dative, the Bologna fragment
attests 1x in + acc: saei fraþjiþ in alla waurstwa ize (Bl 2v.14 = Ps 33:15) ‘who understands
all their works’. For the acc, cf. þata samo fraþjan (Phil 4:2A/B) ‘to think the same
(thing)’. In the sole example of a passive, the subject is nom: þata auk fraþjaidau
<fraiþjaidau> in izwis (Phil 2:5B) ‘let this additionally be the thinking in you’. Given
the neuter passive subject and the meaning, the active object may be accusative.
Fulla-fāhjan (3x) occurs twice with dative complement in the sense of ‘serve,
content’ (Mk 15:15, Lk 4:8) and once with accusative ‘satisfy’ (Sk 7.4.2f.) (GCS 188).
Ga-sakan ‘prove wrong, convict’ + acc: gasakiþ þo manaseþ bi frawaurht (Jn 16:8)
‘he will prove the world wrong about sin’; ‘rebuke’ + dat: gasok windam (Mt 8:26) ‘he
rebuked the winds’ (more discussion in GCS 190f.).
Us-kiusan ‘test, prove’ + acc: all uskiusaiþ (1Thess 5:21B) ‘put everything to the test’;
‘reject’ + dat: stains þammei uskusun timrjans (Lk 20:17) ‘the stone which the builders
rejected’. It is demonstrable on semantic grounds that the active dative complement
can be the nominative subject of the passive, e.g. skal sunus mans manag winnan jah
uskusans fram sinistam wairþan (Lk 9:22) ‘the son of man must suffer many things
and be rejected by the elders’ (cf. GCS 189f.). Gippert (2016: 138) claims uskusans must
be adjectival because a dative complement precludes a passive nominative, which is
simply untrue, as this section proves (cf. §5.29).
Warjan* (9x, 1 dupl) + dat (3x) ‘stop’, e.g. waridedum imma (Mk 9:38) ‘we told him
to stop’, and acc (4x) ‘hinder, block, withhold’, e.g. ni warjiþ þo (Mk 10:14, Lk 18:16) ‘do
not hinder them (the children)’. A technically ambiguous example with uns, warjandans
uns du þiudom rodjan (1Thess 2:16B) ‘prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles’, is
classified by Snædal as dative.
Some alternations are motivated by the difference between literal and figurative
meanings of the object. Three examples follow.
Fra-bugjan (10x) ‘sell’ + acc: þata balsan frabugjan (Mk 14:5) ‘to sell the perfume’
(unless passive; see §5.29), all þatei habais frabugei (Lk 18:24) ‘sell all that you have’.
With noncommercial items the dative is used: þize frabugjandane ahakim (Mk 11:15)
‘of those selling doves’. Of the two passives, one has a commercial subject, the other
noncommercial, and both are nominative: du e þata balsan ni frabauht was (Jn 12:5)
‘why wasn’t the perfume sold?’, ik leikeins im, frabauhts uf frawaurht (Rom 7:14A)
‘I am corporeal, sold under sin’.
4.45 Verbs with apparently arbitrary case variability 157
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.
4.45 Verbs with apparently arbitrary case variability
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’.
4.46 Variable case complements of hausjan ‘hear’

Generally for semantic reasons, some verbs can take complements in several different
cases. The Gothic verb with perhaps the most case variation is hausjan ‘listen to, hear,
heed’. One expects a difference between stative ‘hear’ and eventive ‘listen to, obey’, but
that distribution is not securely established.
4.47 Dative of the person, accusative of the entity
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?’.
(125) Accusative of the thing

ƕazuh saei hauseiþ waurda meina (Mt 7:26; cf. Mt 7:24 azuh nu saei . . . )
‘each one who heeds my words’
[Gk. ho akoúōn mou toùs lógous toútous (acc), Lat. quī audit verba mea (acc)]
Other examples: du hausjan waurd gudis (Lk 5:1) ‘to hear/listen to the word of
God’, ni maguþ hausjan waurd mein (Jn 8:43) ‘you cannot hear my message’, haus-
jands waurda meina (Lk 6:47) ‘hearing my words’, þata waurd þatei hauseiþ (Jn
14:24) ‘that word that you hear’, þai waurd hausjandans (Mk 4:18) ‘those hearing
the word’, þaiei hausjand þata waurd (Mk 4:20) ‘who hear the word’, þaiei þan
hausjand þata waurd (Mk 4:16) ‘who when they hear the word’, waurda gudis
hauseiþ (Jn 8:47) ‘hears God’s words’, hausida unqeþja waurda (2Cor 12:4A/B)
‘he heard unspeakable words’.
swe hausida Aileisabaiþ golein Mariins (Lk 1:41) ‘when Elizabeth heard Mary’s
greeting’, hausideduþ þo wajamerein is (Mk 14:64) ‘you heard his blasphemy’,
hausideduþ fauragaggi gudis anstais (Eph 3:2B) ‘you have heard of the dispensation
of God’s grace’, þata witoþ niu hauseiþ (Gal 4:21A/B) ‘do you not hear the law
(i.e. what it says)?’, bi þanei ik hausja swaleik (Lk 9:9) ‘about whom I hear such’.
þata hausja (Lk 16:2) ‘I hear this’, hausjandans þata (Lk 4:28) ‘hearing this’,
hausidedun þize Fareisaie sumai þata (Jn 9:40) ‘some of the Pharisees heard
this’, a hauseiþ (Mk 4:24) ‘what you hear’, þatei hausideduþ (Jn 8:38) ‘what you
heard’, þoei hausideduþ (Col 1:23A/B) ‘(the gospel) which you heard’, þoei hau-
sides at mis (2Tim 2:2B) ‘(the things) which you heard from me’, þoei at mis
hausides (2Tim 1:13A/B) ‘(words) that you heard from me’, 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’, þoei hausida fram guda (Jn 8:40) ‘which
(truth) I heard from God’.
4.48 Other complements of hausjan
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)]
b) stibnos meinaizos hausjand (Jn 10:16)

‘they (will) listen to my voice’
[Gk. tẽs phōnẽs (gen) mou akoúsousin, Lat. vōcem (acc) meam audient ]
c) hausjandans þize waurde (Jn 7:40)

‘listening to these words’
[Gk. akoúsantes tòn lógon (acc sg), v.l. . . . tõn lógōn toútōn (gen pl),
Lat. cum audīssent hōs sermōnēs eius (acc pl)]
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
b) þo lamba stibnai is hausjand (Jn 10:3)

D.nom.pl.n sheep voice.dat his hear.3pl
‘the sheep hear/heed his voice’
[Gk. tẽs phōnẽs (gen) mou akoúei (3sg), Lat. vōcem (acc) eius audiunt ]
c) jabai ƕas meinaim hausjai waurdam (Jn 12:47)

‘if anyone should hear my words’
[Gk. akoúsēi tõn rhēmátōn (gen), Lat. audierit verba mea (acc)]
4.49 Conclusion on hausjan
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
4.50 Double object verbs

Verbs take different kinds of complements. Double object is a misleading term for
verbs without obligatory complements. What is at issue is the potential for a verb
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
to take multiple arguments. The case assigned to each is subject to variation

(Baker 2015). The higher argument, often the goal, can receive dative case. The
lower object, usually the theme, can receive an oblique case, or both can be assigned
accusative case.
It is not unusual for languages to have different case frames for ditransitive verbs.
Icelandic, for instance, has dat-acc, dat-dat, dat-gen, acc-gen, and acc-dat
(Barðdal 2015: 361). The main types of double object verbs in Gothic are dat-acc,
acc-dat, acc-gen, and acc-acc (Ferraresi 2005: 63ff.) or, more technically, acc-
inst (dat), acc-abl (dat), acc-goal (dat), dat-acc, acc-gen, dat-gen, etc.
(Rousseau 2016: 262–7, 276–9).
Ferraresi’s dat-acc and acc-dat verbs have considerable overlap. The intent is
that these correspond to different semantic classes, but Gothic word order is too
free to establish the patterns with certainty. Ferraresi allows for pronouns to violate
the order, but since she uses examples with pronouns to establish her patterns,
counterexamples with pronouns should be no less probative. Moreover, with
passivization, both types behave entirely the same. For a complete list, see Winkler
(1896: 42–68) and Van der Meer (1901: 52–5, 70–80).
4.51 Dative-accusative verbs
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
(132) sa andstaldands fraiwa þana saiandan

D.nom.sg.m supplying.nom.sg.m seed.dat.sg D.acc.sg.m sower.acc.sg
jah hlai ba du mata anstaldiþ jah managjai
and bread.dat.sg for food supply.3sg and multiply.3sg.opt
‘the one providing the sower with seed and with (2Cor 9:10B)
bread for food shall supply and multiply’
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):
(133) ni naudibandjom eisarneinaim manna mahta ina gabindan

neg chain.dat.pl.f iron.dat.pl.f man.nom could him bind.inf
‘not with chains of iron could a man bind him’ (Mk 5:3)
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.
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.
4.52 Accusative-dative verbs
Seven acc-dat verbs are listed in Ferraresi (2005:64f.): ana-filhan ‘(re)commend,

entrust’, (at-, fra-, us-) giban ‘give’, manwjan ‘prepare’, rahnjan* ‘calculate’, salbon
‘anoint’, ur-raisjan ‘raise up’, and-saljan (Sk 5.3.24f.) ‘sacrifice’. Additional examples are
supplied here.
Ana-biudan* (40x, 4 dupl) ‘command’, e.g. a izwis anabauþ Moses (Mk 10:3) ‘what
did Moses command you?’
Ana-filhan (21x, 2 dupl) in the sense of ‘commend’ is monotransitive. Only in the
sense of ‘hand over, entrust’ is it common as an acc-dat verb, e.g. þo anabusn anafilha
þus (1Tim 1:18B) ‘this command(ment) I entrust to you’, þo anafilh triggwai(m)
mannam (2Tim 2:2B) ‘entrust them to loyal people’ (triggwai mannam is a common
scribal error, misanalyzed as phrasal inflection or inflectional gapping by Rousseau
2012: 72, 102).
And-saljan (1x) means ‘offer tribute’ and is dat-acc:
(136) guda | un-bauranamma and|saljan sweriþa (Sk 5.3.23ff.)
god.dat.sg un-born.dat.sg.m offer.tribute.inf honor.acc.sg.f
‘(we must) offer honor as tribute to the unborn God’
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
Gansjan* ‘cause’ in its only occurrence has a goal dative:

(137) þanamais arbaide ni ainshun mis gansjai (Gal 6:17B)
henceforth trouble.gen.pl neg any.nom.sg.m I.dat cause.3sg.opt
‘henceforth let no one cause me trouble’
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’.
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.’]
(143) ni rahnjands im missadedins ize

neg counting.nom.sg.m they.dat.pl.m missdeed.acc.pl they.gen.pl.m
(2Cor 5:19A/B)
‘not charging to them their trespasses’ (i.e. not counting them against them)
[Gk. m logizómenos autoĩs tà parapt mata autõn,
Vulg. nōn reputāns illīs dēlicta ipsōrum]
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).
4.53 Accusative-accusative verbs
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’
(145) sa izwis laiseiþ allata (Jn 14:26)

he you.acc.pl teach.3sg all.acc.sg.n
‘he will teach you everything’
[Gk. ekeĩnos hūmãs didáxei pánta, Lat. ille vōs docēbit omnia ‘id.’]
Although izwis is formally ambiguous, laisjan is otherwise a double accusative verb,

e.g. laisida ins . . . manag (Mk 4:2) ‘taught them much’. It is the only causative verb
(cf. lais ‘I know’ §5.30) with two accusatives (García García 2003: 380).
A double accusative construction {call x y} can occur with haitan ‘call’:
(146) Daweid ina fraujan haitiþ (Lk 20:44)
David.nom he.acc lord.acc call.3sg
‘David calls him lord’
[Gk. Dauìd oũn kurion autòn kaleĩ, v.l. (not Byz.) . . . autòn kurion . . . ,
Lat. Dauid ergō dominum illum vocat ‘id.’]
(147) haita þo . . . managein meina (Rom 9:25A)

call.1sg they.acc . . . multitude.acc.sg.f my.acc.sg.f
‘I (will) call them my people’
[Gk. kalésō tòn . . . lāón mou, Lat. vocābō . . . plēbem . . . plēbem meam]
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.’]
(150) ni mik silban wairþana rahnida (Lk 7:7)

neg I.acc self.acc.sg.m worthy.acc.sg.m count.1sg.pret
‘I did not count myself worthy’
[Gk. oudè emautòn ēxíōsa, Lat. mēipsum nōn sum dīgnum arbitrātus ‘id.’]
33 The term small clause is applied in the vast literature to many different structures. Essentially, SC will
be used here to refer to a verbless clause that is semantically equivalent to a corresponding full clause with
be. The SC is clausal because it has the conventional subject/predicate geometry, semantic predication
relation, and core clausal properties of extraction.
On the standard account in (i), the SC can merge (as a parameter) with the copula (§9.31). For a
detailed discussion, see Miller (2002: ch. 6, w. lit). See also Accusative and participle (§9.26).
(i) [I judge [ip e [vp to be [sc they culpable]]]
The predicate of the SC need not be an AP. It can also be a DP, as in (ii-a) or a PP, as in (ii-b).
(ii) a) they believe [him [dp an enemy]]
b) they believe [him [pp in the garden]]
As another parameter, which is operative in Gothic and English, the SC can merge with a particle, as in
(iii-a), illustrated in (iii-b).
(iii) a) [ . . . [ptcp ptc [sc . . . AP/DP/PP]]]
b) they regard him as an enemy
170 Case functions
(151) fraujans . . . sweriþos wairþans rahnjaina

master.acc.pl . . . honor.gen.sg.f worthy.acc.pl.m count.3pl.opt
‘they should consider their masters worthy of respect’ (1Tim 6:1A/B)
[Gk. despótās . . . tīmẽs axíous hēgeísthōsan,
Lat. dominōs . . . honōre dīgnōs arbitrentur ‘id.’]
(152) ni swaswe fijand ina rahnjaiþ (2Thess 3:15A/B)

neg as enemy.acc.sg he.acc.sg count.2pl.opt
‘do not count him as an enemy’
[Gk. m hōs ekhthròn hēgeĩsthe, Lat. nōlīte quasi inimīcum exīstimāre ‘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’.
4.54 Accusative-genitive verbs
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
4.55 Passivization of double object verbs
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
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’
(158) anst gudis sei gibana ist mis (Rom 12:3C)

grace god.gen rel:f given.nom.sg.f is I.dat.sg
‘the grace of God which has been 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’
(160) ei kanniþ wesi nu reikjam . . .

comp revealed.nom.sg.n be.3sg.pret.opt now rule(r).dat.pl
so . . . handugei gudis (Eph 3:10A/B)
D.nom.sg.f wisdom.nom.sg.f god.gen.sg
‘that there might be revealed to the rulers . . . the (manifold) wisdom of God’
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’
The same is true of the inchoative verb (ga)fullnan* ‘become filled’:

(162) ga-full-no-da ahmins weihis Aileisabaiþ
prfx-fill-inch-3sg.pret spirit.gen.sg holy.gen.sg.m Elizabeth.nom
‘Elizabeth became filled with the holy spirit’ (Lk 1:41)
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.
(163) haitans warþ akrs jains akrs bloþis

called.nom.sg.m got field.nom.sg.m yon.nom.sg.m field blood.gen.sg
‘that field came to be called the field of blood’ (Mt 27:8)
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
The verbal system
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.
5.2 The strong verb

Strong verbs (ablauting type sing, sang, sung) have seven form classes, cited by four
principal parts: infinitive, preterite 1/3sg, preterite 1pl (or 3pl -un), and the past par-
ticiple, which is passive (PPP) on most transitive bases.
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).

5.2 The strong verb 177
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.
Table 5.1 Strong verb classes
infinitive 1/3sg pret 1pl pret P(P)P gloss
Class 1 -steigan -stáig -stigum *stigans ‘ascend’

Class 2 -biudan* -báuþ -budum -budans* ‘command’
Class 3 -bindan -band (-bundun) bundans ‘bind’
Class 4 niman nam nemum -numans ‘take’
Class 5 giban gaf (gebun) -gibans ‘give’
Class 6 faran* for* forum* farans* ‘travel’3
Class 7 -maítan -maímáit (maímáitun) -máitans ‘cut’
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
5.3 The thematic verb

Nearly all basic verbs in Germanic were provided with a thematic present (LHE2 199).
That is a form class with a stem vowel characterized by an -a- /-e- (-i-) alternation.
Table 5.2 contains the paradigm of niman ‘take’ (str 4). Many forms are restored
because the best-attested verb, qiþan ‘say’, has only 37% of its possible forms (Snædal
2009a: 162f.).
Table 5.2 A Gothic thematic verb
ind act ind pass opt act opt pass impv
Nonpast
sg 1 -nima nimada* nimáu nimáidáu*

2 nimis nimaza* -nimáis nimáizáu* nim
3 nimiþ -nimada nimái nimáidáu* nimadáu*
du 1 nimos* nimáiwa*
2 nimats* nimaits* nimats*
pl 1 nimam* nimanda* -nimáima nimáindáu* nimam*
2 nimiþ nimanda* nimáiþ nimáindáu* nimiþ*
3 nimand nimanda* nimáina nimáindáu* nimandáu*
ind act opt act
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).
5.4 Partial list of strong verbs
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.
5.5 Strong class 1
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)
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)
5.6 Strong class 2

-biudan*: ana-biudan* ‘command, give orders (to be obeyed)’ (Grünwald 1910: 26;
Barasch 1973: 144), ana-bauþ, ana-budum, ana-budana (nom sg f); faur-biudan*
‘command’ (Haessler 1935) takes only dat (§4.43) and finite complements (Köhler
1867: 446)
driusan ‘fall (down)’ (in ga-driusan Lk 16:17 ‘to drop’), 3sg draus (plus many prefixed
forms, incl. us-draus Bl 2r.10 ‘fell out’), drusun (Mk 3:10, 11), *drusans; generally
construed with directional Ps (Borrmann 1892: 15f.)
kiusan ‘test, prove’ (in ga-kiusan Rom 12:2C ‘try, test’, us-kiusan Mk 8:31 ‘be rejected’
with us- opposed to ga-, hence ‘exclude by examining’: Gruber 1930: 18, 19f., 25; cf.
Wolf 1915: 26), *kaus, kusum* (cf. us-kusun Lk 20:17 ‘they rejected’), ga-kusans / us-
kusans; cf. un–ga-kusans* [having not passed the test] ‘disapproved, reject(ed); fail-
ure, reprobate’ (nom pl m ungakusanai 2Cor 13:5, 6, 7A/B, Tit 1:16A, the last a
margin gloss on us-kusanai), calqued on Gk. a-dókimos ‘not standing the test,
rejected as false, disreputable, reprobate’ (Velten 1930: 349). Gk. dokimázein = kiu-
san; with us-kiusan cf. Gk. apo-dokimázein ‘reject on scrutiny’ (Leont’ev 1965: 256f.)
2.liugan* ‘(tell a) lie’, *laug, *lugum, *lugans (6x, 1 dupl; no prefixes)
fra-liusan* ‘lose’, fra-laus (Lk 15:9), *fra-lusum, fra-lusans (Lk 15:24, 32); the 4th prin-
cipal part means ‘lost’ except for acc sg m wk fralusanan ‘perishable’ (Jn 6:27)
ga-lūkan* [with long /ū/ GG 150] ‘(en)close’ / us-lūkan (Jn 10:21) ‘open’ (lit. ‘un-close’),
3sg ga-lauk / us-lauk, ga-lukun, -lukans* (dat sg f us-lukanai 2Cor 2:12A/B); us-lūkan
also has the idiomatic meaning of ‘draw (a sword)’, e.g. PrP nom sg m us-lūkands
Mk 14:47 (Bucsko 2011: 109), lit. ‘reveal, disclose’ the sword (Wolf 1915: 28)
siukan ‘be sick, weak’ (inf Phil 2:26A/B): has several strange properties: (i) verbs
denoting mental or physical states are typically weak; (ii) siukan has only nonpast
forms; (iii) the adjective siuks ‘sick, weak’ with ‘be’ functions as the past system
(siuks was Jn 11:2, 6, Rom 8:3A, Phil 2:27A/B; was-uh . . . siuks Jn 11:1); there is one
example of overlap in the nonpast system: þanei frijos siuks ist (Jn 11:3) ‘the one you
love is sick’; cf. as siukiþ (2Cor 11:29B) ‘who is weak?’ (Sturtevant 1938: 460f.)
tiuhan ‘lead, guide, bring’ (Lk 6:39 ‘lead’, 18:40 ‘be brought’; cf. af-tiuhan (Lk 5:3) ‘pull
(row) away’, at-tiuhan (Rom 10:6A) ‘bring (hither)’, bi-tiuhan (1Cor 9:5A) ‘lead
about, take along’, us-tiuhan (6x) ‘lead out; complete; raise up’: Wolf 1915: 14; Gruber
1930: 22; cf. Bucsko 2011: 127), tauh (in us-tauh Jn 17:4, 2Tim 4:7A/B ‘I finished’; 3sg
tauh in at-tauh Jn 18:16 ‘brought’, ga-tauh Lk 4:9 ‘led, took’, us-tauh, e.g. in subscriptions
5.6–7 Strong class 2–3 181
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
5.7 Strong class 3
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
is the single occurrence of idiomatic und-rinnan* (3sg opt und-rinnai Lk 15:12)

‘fall to (by inheritance)’ (Bucsko 2011: 107f.)
siggwan (Lk 4:16) ‘sing; chant, recite, read aloud’, of solemn, ceremonial readings
(Grünwald 1910: 40f.), *saggw, suggwum* (2pl us-suggwuþ 3x with a partially
restored margin gloss of hauseiþ ‘you hear’ at Gal 4:21A (Marold 1881a: 144f.) ~ us-
suggwud Lk 6:3 ‘you read/heard (in the Scriptures)’: Wolf 1915: 23f.), suggwans*:
only dat sg n wk in in þam|ma faura-suggwanin liuþa (Bl 2r.15f.) ‘in the previously
chanted/recited hymn’ (Falluomini 2014: 297); for the meaning ‘sing’, cf. siggwan-
dans (Col 3:16B) = Gk. āídontes ‘singing’, siggwandans (Eph 5:19A) = Gk. āídontes
kaì psállontes ‘singing and harp-singing’ (cf. Kind 1901: 26)
sigqan* (2x) ‘sink’ [itr vs. caus sagqjan* ‘sink, plunge’]: 3sg sagq (Lk 4:40) ‘went
down, set’ (of the sun) / ga-saggq (Mk 1:32) ‘set’ (of the sun), sugqun (Lk 5:7) ‘(ships)
were (on the verge of) sinking’, ?sugqans*; dis-sigqan* ‘go down (over something)’
occurs only in 3sg opt sunno ni dis-sigqai (Eph 4:26A ~ -siggqai B) ‘let the sun not
set’ (Rolffs 1908: 17)
stigqan ‘clash, collide’ (q.v. in App.) (Lk 14:31 ‘wage war’—the only unprefixed form)
[itr beside one occurrence of caus ga-stagqjan* ‘knock sthg against sthg’: GK 84],
3sg bi-stagq (Lk 6:48, 49) ‘beat violently against’, bi-stugqun (Mt 7:25, 27) ‘id.’ ~ bi-
stuggqun (Rom 9:32A) ‘stumbled’, *stugqans; the 4 passages with bi-stigqan* have a
separate P in syntax but in Greek the P prós ‘towards, against’ is incorporated into
the verb (Borrmann 1892: 16)
swiltan ‘be dying’ (in ga-swiltan 6x ‘die’, miþ-ga-swiltan 2Cor 7:3A ‘die together’, prob-
ably a ga- verb to which miþ was prefixed by association with Gk. sun-apo-thnēiskein
‘id.’: Casaretto 2014: 50), ga-swalt (Gal 2:19A) ‘I died’ (cf. 3sg swalt Lk 8:42 ‘lay
dying’—the only unprefixed form attested / ga-swalt freq), ga-swultun (3x, 1 dupl),
*swultans
*þinsan ‘draw, stretch’ (EDPG 543f.): only prefixed forms, rare: at-þinsan* ‘draw
towards, pull up to’: 1sg alla at-þinsa du mis (Jn 12:32) ‘I’ll draw all things to myself ’,
3sg at-þinsiþ ina (Jn 6:44) ‘draws him to (me)’; us-þinsan* ‘draw out’: 3sg opt us-
þinsai (Gk. exeleĩtai) in ƕas ist g(u)þ saei usþinsai izwis | us handum meinaim
(Bl 2v.24f.) ‘who is the god that can take you from my hands?’ (Falluomini 2014:
294, 297, 305)
wairpan (Mk 7:27) ‘throw’ / af-wairpan (Jn 11:8) ‘pelt (with stones)’ / at-wairpan
(Mk 9:47) ‘to be cast (into hell)’ / us-wairpan (5x) ‘throw out, cast out, (r)eject’
(Wolf 1915: 13, 18; Velten 1930: 500; Gruber 1930: 22f.; Leont’ev 1965: 257), 3sg warp
(in at-warp Mk 9:22, us-warp 3x), waurpum (in us-waurpum Mt 7:22 ‘we drove
out’; 3pl us-waurpun 5x), waurpans (in at-waurpans was Lk 16:20 ‘was cast down’,
fra-waurpans Mk 9:42 ‘cast away’)
wairþan ‘become; come to pass; happen’, warþ, waurþum (1Cor 4:9A, 2Cor 4:1A/B,
Rom 7:6A), waurþans (Harbert 1978: 242–52; prophetic future: Mittner 1939: 69–76;
Feuillet 2014: 48)
wilwan ‘rob; steal’ (Mk 3:27 ‘ransack’, Jn 6:15 ‘seize, take by force’; cf. fra-wilwan
Jn 10:29 ‘snatch’, 3sg fra-walw (Lk 8:29) ‘seized’, *wulwum, fra-wulwans warþ
(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)
5.8 Strong class 4
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.
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)
5.9 Strong class 5
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)’.
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
1936: 277f.); faur-qiþan may be semantically influenced by Gk. apologéomai because

faur- does not otherwise render Gk. apo- (Casaretto 2014: 48, w. lit). In the Gospels
qiþan translates Gk. légein ‘say’ 504 times out of 508 (Yoshioka 1986: 219). For the
semantics of qiþan and its prefixed constructs, see Grünwald (1910), Aston (1958:
12–20), Lloyd (1979: 265f.)
sai an ‘see, look (at)’, sa (3x, 3sg 4x), se um (4x), sai ans (in ga-sai ans 2x); for
seeing as visual capacity, cf. blinds was, iþ nu sai a (Jn 9:25) ‘I was blind but now
I see’ (Lloyd 1979: 235); for the meaning ‘look at’, cf. saei sai iþ qinon du luston izos
(Mt 5:28) ‘he who looks at a woman to lust after her’ (Lloyd 1979: 242); semantic
details in Porterfield (1934)
At-sai an* has several constructions and meanings, e.g. [+acc] ‘look at’:
at-sai ands þuk silban (Gal 6:1B) ‘carefully watching yourself ’; [+du] ‘pay attention
to’: at-sai du þus silbin jah du laiseinai (1Tim 4:16B) ‘focus on yourself and the
teaching’; [+faura] ‘watch out for’: at-sai iþ . . . faura praufetum (Mt 7:15) ‘beware
of false prophets’; [+gen] ‘give importance to’: at-sai aina spille (1Tim 1:4A/B)
‘they should (not) heed myths’ (§4.29)
Ga-sai an ‘catch sight of, see’, ga-sa (3x, 3sg 24x), ga-se um (Lk 9:49),
ga-sai ans (Mk 16:11, 1Cor 15:6A) is frequent and usually occurs as an ingressive in
the preterite rendering forms of the Greek aorist ideĩn ‘id.’ (Roedder 1937). It can
emphasize effectuated perception or the established ability to see (Josephson 1976:
164ff.), and consequential ‘see’ as a result of focused attention; cf. ga-sai is þo
qinon? (Lk 7:44) ‘do you see this woman?’ (Mirowicz 1935: 22; Marache 1960: 13;
Lloyd 1979: 234). The passive is used like Lat. vidērī ‘seem, appear’: ei gasai aindau
mannam fastandands (Mt 6:16) ‘that they may appear to people (to be) fasting’; so
also 2sg opt pass gasai aizau (Mt 6:18)
sitan (Mk 10:40) ‘to sit’ / ga-sitan (Mk 4:1, 2Thess 2:4A) ‘to sit (down), take a seat’, sat
(7x) / ga-sat (5x), setun (Mk 3:32), — (GG 152); note dis-sat (Lk 5:26, 7:16, diz-uh-
þan-sat Mk 16:8) ‘seized’ (Bucsko 2011: 87), and-sitandans (1Cor 10:27A) ‘question-
ing’ (Barasch 1973: 129f.); cf. the roughly parallel and-hruskandans (1Cor 10:25A)
‘id.’ (Johannisson 1949)
1. wisan ‘be’, was, wesum, — (suppletive nonpast §5.25, App.); different meanings are
associated with different constructions (Borrmann 1892: 8f.)
2. wisan ‘feast, devour’ (Stiles 1985, 2004: 464–8; cf. Martellotti 1972; Rosén 1984):
only inf (Lk 15:24, 32), 1pl wisam (Lk 15:23), and PrP nom sg m wisands (Lk 16:19),
with waila ‘well’ (Gk. eu-phraínesthai ‘make merry’, NT ‘feast’ [Rosén 1984: 383]) in
all but Lk 15:24, where it can be understood from the previous verse (Ulf. 609, with
parallels; Streitberg 1907b disagrees); cf. bi-wisan*: 1sg pret opt biwesjau (Lk 15:29)
‘(that) I could feast’ = Vet. Lat. epulārer ‘I might feast’, etc., the same verb used in
Lk 15:23, 24 (VL 1976: 181f.), and fra-wisan*: frawas (Lk 15:14) ‘consumed’ (Wissmann
1932: 91; Rosén 1984: 385ff.; VEW 562; Stiles 2004: 467f.; EDPG 582; not to 1.wisan,
pace Snædal)
3. wisan (Lk 19:5, 1Cor 7:11A, Phil 1:24) ‘stay, abide, remain’, 3sg (ga)was, wesun
(Mk 8:2), —, well attested, often futuristic, and the same verb as 1.wisan because
‘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)
5.10 Strong class 6
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
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’)
5.11 Strong class 7
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).
(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
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
5.12 Irregular and suppletive

briggan ‘bring, lead; render’ (q.v. in App.), brāhta, brāhtedum, *brāhts (str 3 [GG 151]
with -C- stem wk pret); briggan in the sense of ‘make’ takes two acc objects (§4.53)
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)
5.13 The weak verb

The weak verb is unique to Germanic. Its distinctive feature is the dental preterite (type
Eng. -ed). Gothic has -d- (-t- after voiceless continuant) in the singular, -ded- (-ted-) in
the dual and plural (Beade 1971: 55ff.). Many different accounts have been offered (e.g.
Kiparsky 2009 and forthcoming; Hill 2010; Kim 2010; Stiles 2010; Mottausch 2013:
28–35; Ringe 2012, 2017: 182–94; Jasanoff 2018). Most different is Jasanoff, who begins
with a middle construction *warmē dedai ‘3sg became warm’ beside *warmē dedō ‘3SG
made warm’, followed by creation of a mixed active/middle paradigm and formal align-
ment with the PPP (*þanhtai ‘thought’ after *þanhtaz etc.). A form like Goth. waúrhta
‘s/he worked/did’ likely goes back to *wurhta # dedē [wrought–made.3sg] (LHE2
192ff.); cf. Northumbrian OE 3sg sbj dede (quantity unknown), etc., probably the reflex
of an IE imperfect *dhédheh1d (LHE2 182–5, w. lit).
The weak verb has four main form classes (see Table 5.3). Wk 4 verbs are agentless
and have no passive.
Table 5.3 Weak verb paradigms
Class 1 2 3 4
nasjan sokjan salbon haban fullnan*
‘save’ ‘seek’ ‘anoint’ ‘have’ ‘get filled’
Indicative
sg 1 nasja* sokja salbo* haba fullna*

2 -nasjis sokeis* salbos* habáis fullnis*
3 -nasjiþ sokeiþ salboþ* habáiþ/d fullniþ*
du 1 nasjos sokjos* *salbos habos fullnos*

2 *nasjats *sokjats *salbots *habats *fullnats
pl 1 nasjam* sokjam* salbom* habam fullnam*

2 nasjiþ* sokeiþ salboþ* habáiþ/d fullniþ*
3 nasjand* sokjand salbond* haband fullnand*
(continued )
Table 5.3 Continued

Class 1 2 3 4
Imperative
sg 2 nasei sokei salbo habai fulln*7

3 *nasjadáu *sokjadáu *salbodáu *habadáu *fullnadáu
du 2 *nasjats *sokjats *salbots *habats *fullnats
pl 1 nasjam* sokjam* *salbom *habam *fullnam

2 nasjiþ* sokeiþ* salboþ* habaiþ* fullniþ*
3 nasjandáu* sokjandáu* salbondáu* habandáu* fullnandáu*
Optative
sg 1 -nasjáu -sokjáu salbo* habáu -fullnáu

2 -nasjáis sokjáis* salbos* habáis* fullnáis*
3 nasjái* sokjái salbo* habái -fulnái
du 1 *nasjáiwa *sokjáiwa *salbowa8 *habáiwa *fullnáiwa

2 *nasjáits *sokjáits *salbots *habáits *fullnáits
pl 1 nasjáima* sokjáima* salboma* habáima fullnáima*

2 nasjáiþ* sokjáiþ* salboþ* habáiþ ful(l)náiþ
3 nasjáina* sokjáina* salbona* habáina fullnáina*
Passive indicative
sg 1 nasjada* sokjada* salboda* habada* —

2 *nasjaza *sokjaza *salboza *habaza —
3 -nasjada -sokjada salboda* habada* —
pl 1–3 nasjanda* sokjanda* salbonda* habanda —

Passive optative
sg 1 nasjáidáu* -sokjáidáu salbodáu* habáidáu* —

2 nasjáizáu* sokjáizáu* salbozáu* habáizáu* —
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.).
Table 5.3 Continued

Class 1 2 3 4
3 nasjáidáu* sokjáidáu* salbodáu* habáidáu* —

pl 1–3 nasjáindáu* sokjáindáu* salbondáu* habáindáu* —
Preterite
sg 1 nasida* sokida salboda* habáida fullnoda*

2 ga-nasides sokides* salbodes habáides* fullnodes*
3 -nasida sokida salboda habáida -fullnoda
pl 1 nasidedum* sokidedum salbodedum* habáidedum fullnodedum*

2 nasideduþ* sokideduþ salbodeduþ* habáideduþ* fullnodeduþ*
3 nasidedun* sokidedun -salbodedun habáidedun -ful(l)nodedun
Preterite optative
sg 1 -nasidedjáu sokidedjáu* salbodedjáu* habáidedjáu* fullnodedjau*

2 nasidedeis* sokidedeis* salbodedeis* habáidedeis* fullnodedeis*
3 -nasidedi sokidedi* salbodedi* habáidedi* -fullnodedi
pl 1 nasidedeima* sokidedeima* salbodedeima* habáidedeima fullnodedeima*

2 nasidedeiþ* sokidedeiþ* salbodedeiþ* habáidedeiþ fullnodedeiþ*
3 nasidedeina* sokidedeina* -salbodedeina habáidedeina -fullnodedeina
5.14 Partial list of weak verbs
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
9 The list in GS 97ff. is arranged by class and syllable structure.

10 Intensive, iterative, causative express verbal plurality (Kölligan 2004: 234–41) but can differ (LHE2 283).
11 Fientive (similar to the ‘become’ operator) for Katz includes the result state. For extensive applica-
tion of [νfient[state]] see Miller (2014b: ch. 4, w. lit). For Katz’s target-state predicates, the eventuality of
the verb is telic but the result state can persist. All 61 Gothic -nan verbs, 32 of which have a transitive
counterpart (Klimov 1990a), are also discussed by Guxman (1964: 71–94) and Suzuki (1989). Additional
discussion can be found in Skladny (1873: 12–18), Wolf (1915: 21f.), West (1980, 1981a), Klimov (1990a),
Schwerdt (2001), Ferraresi (2005: 111–17), Ottósson (2013), Rousseau (2016: 237–43).
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.
5.15 Weak class 1
-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
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’)
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).
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.)
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
(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.
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.).
(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).
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’
5.16 Weak class 2
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)
5.17 Weak class 3
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
(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.)
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)
5.18 Weak class 4
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.’ .
‘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’
5.19 Verb classes by prefix properties

Verb classes can be defined in different ways. There are formal and semantic classes,
but formal classes can be due to semantic factors. It was noted above, for instance, that
each of the weak verb classes share formal and semantic properties. Class 1 (-jan
verbs) are predominantly causative and denominal. Class 4 (the -nan verbs) are some-
times referred to as passive. Indeed, the PrPs often translate Greek middle and passive
participles (Gering 1874: 300). However, they are nonagentive, inherently telic, fien-
tive, or target-stative (§5.14); cf. gaháiljan ‘heal’ : gaháilnan* ‘become healed’, gadáuþ-
jan* ‘kill’ : gadáuþnan ‘die’, mikiljan* ‘make great’ : mikilnan ‘become great’, etc. Their
PrPs are completive, e.g. þai aflifnandans (1Thess 4:17B) ‘(those) remaining’, more pre-
cisely ‘those having become left behind’ (Katz 2016: 162).
Some classes are defined by prefixation. McLintock (1972: esp. 85) cites verbs with
fra- and ufar- in agreement with other Germanic languages. Some verbs of contempt
take fra-, e.g. fra-kunnan ‘spurn, disdain, despise’, fra-qiþan* ‘curse, disparage, reject’.
The meanings of ufar ‘over’ (excess, abundance, etc.; see ufargudja* in §7.7) make it
ideal for verbs denoting haughtiness and arrogance: ufar-hafnan*: ei ni ufarhafnau
(2Cor 12:7A/B) ‘lest I be(come) overproud’, ufar-hauhjan*: ufarhauhiþs (1Tim 3:6A)
‘conceited’, ufar-hugjan*: ei ni ufarhugjau (2Cor 12:7A/B) ‘lest I be(come) conceited’.
In is frequent with verbs denoting entrance into a state of mind (Sturtevant 1936:
279): in-agjan* ‘reprove’, in-aljanon* ‘make angry’, in-drobnan* ‘become troubled’, in-
gramjan* ‘provoke’, in-swinþjan ‘strengthen’, in-wagjan* ‘put in commotion, trouble’, etc.
Gothic verbs that admit no (attested) lexical aspect contrasts by means of ga- pre-
fixation (§§9.11ff.) include thinking, feeling, and perceiving; declarative and other verbs
of sound production (Aston 1958; cf. Scherer 1964: 233; 1970); nonpunctual verbs of
motion; miscellaneous verbs; and statives. Only the first two and the last class are
reviewed in §§5.20ff. The last class consists partly of preterite presents and partly of
other stative and modal verbs (cf. Lloyd 1979: 261–314; Rousseau 2012: 129).
5.20–21 Verbs of perception, experience, declaration, and sound production 207
5.20 Verbs of perception, feeling, and experience
aljanon (wk 2) ‘act zealously’ (5x, plus in- 2x)

faginon (wk 2) ‘rejoice’ (well attested, plus miþ- 2x)
fraþjan (str 6) ‘think, realize’ (well attested, plus fulla- 2Cor 5:13A/B 1pl fullafraþjam
‘we are in our right mind, in possession of our full mental faculties’)
gairnjan* (wk 1) ‘desire’ (well attested; no prefixes)
gaumjan (wk 1) ‘see, behold, perceive, notice’ (16x; no prefixes) (Porterfield 1934: 207;
Elkin 1954: 290f.; Barasch 1973: 141)
huggrjan* (wk 1) ‘hunger’ (2x; no prefixes)
maurnan* (wk 3) ‘worry’ (4x, 1 dupl; no prefixes)
miton* (wk 2) ‘deliberate’ (11x, 2 dupl; no prefixes)
2.munan* (wk 3) ‘intend, be (about) to’ (6x; no prefixes)
saurgan (wk 3) ‘sorrow’ (7x, 4 dupl; no prefixes)
sifan* (wk 3) ‘rejoice’ (3x; no prefixes)
swegnjan <swignjan> (wk 1) ‘rejoice, triumph’ (4x; no prefixes)
þagkjan (wk 1) ‘think (over)’ (well attested, plus and- 3x and bi- 1x)
þaursjan* (wk 1) ‘thirst’ (4x, 1 dupl; plus af- 2x); ga- occurs only with -þaursnan* 5x
‘become completely dry’ (Dorfeld 1885: 21) and on þairsan* (str 3) ‘wither’, which
occurs only in the PPP gaþaursans* (acc sg f gaþaursana Mk 3:1, 3 ‘withered’)
5.21 Verbs of declaration and sound production
auhjon* (wk 2) ‘make noises’ (Mt 9:23, Mk 5:39; no prefixes)

awiliudon (wk 2) ‘thank, give thanks’ (well attested, no prefixes)
gaunon (wk 2) ‘mourn’ (Lk 6:25, 7:32, Jn 16:20; no prefixes)
goljan (wk 1) ‘greet’ (well attested, no prefixes)
gretan (str 7) ‘weep, mourn’ (well attested; no prefixes)
háitan (str 7) ‘call; name; exhort’ (many prefixes, including well-attested ga- ‘con-
voke; promise’)
haúrnjan (wk 1) ‘blow a horn’ (Mt 6:2, 9:23; no prefixes)
hazjan (wk 1) ‘praise’ (well attested; no prefixes)
hiufan* (str 2) ‘lament, mourn’: only 1pl pret hufum (Mt 11:7; Lk 7:32 = margin gloss
for gaunodedum; see gaunon) (no prefixes)
hlahjan* (str 6) ‘laugh’ (Lk 6:25), bi-hlahjan* (3x) ‘laugh at, deride’ with transitivizing
bi- (West 1982: 155); contrast uf-hlohjan* (wk 1) ‘cause to laugh’, only 2pl pass
ufhlohjanda (Lk 6:21) ‘you will be brought to laughter’ for Greek act gelásete ‘you
will laugh’ (Marold 1882: 34f.)
hropjan (wk 1) ‘call’ (well attested; also uf-)
hrukjan (wk 1) ‘crow’ of a rooster (5x; no prefixes)
opan (str 7) ‘boast’ (well attested; no prefixes)
klismjan* (wk 1): only PrP nom sg f klismjandei (1Cor 13:1A) ‘clanging’ (Barasch 1973:
147f.)
2.liugan* (str 2) ‘tell lies’ (6x, 1 dupl; no prefixes)
liuþon* (wk 2) ‘sing (praises)’: only 1sg liuþo (Rom 15:9C) (no prefixes)
maþljan* (wk 1) ‘speak (solemnly)’ (Francini 2009: 106f.): only 1sg maþlia (Jn 14:30)
(no prefixes)
merjan (wk 1) ‘proclaim, preach’ (well attested; also us- 1x, waila-, waja-)
praúfetjan* (wk 1) ‘prophesy’ (9x; no prefixes)
qainon (wk 2) ‘weep’ (4x, 1 dupl; no prefixes)
qiþan (str 5) ‘say’ (freq, plus af-, ana-, and-, faur-, faura-, fra-, miþ-, us-; ga- only ga-
qeþun Jn 9:22 jūþan auk gaqeþun sis Iudaieis ‘for the Jews had already agreed’:
Bucsko 2011: 99f.)
rodjan (wk 1) ‘speak’ (well attested; also bi- (7x) ‘mutter, complain, grumble’: Bucsko
2011: 85f.; miþ- Lk 9:30 miþ-rodidedun imma ‘they spoke with him’)
siggwan (str 3) [sing] ‘chant; recite, read (aloud)’ (3x, 1 dupl, plus us-)
swaran (str 6) ‘swear’ (7x, 2 dupl, plus bi- 2x, 1 dupl, ufar- 1x ‘commit perjury’)
swiglon* (wk 2) ‘play the flute’ (2x; no prefixes)
swogatjan* (wk 1) ‘sigh, groan’ (only 1pl swogatjam 2Cor 5:2, 4A/B; no prefixes, but
note ga-swogida (Mk 7:34) ‘he sighed’, uf-swogjands (Mk 8:12) ‘sighing/groaning
deeply’)16
us-bairan (str 4) ‘answer’ (§5.8)
wáifaír jan* (wk 1): only PrP acc pl m waifair jandans ‘wailing loudly’ (Barasch
1973: 147f.)
-waúrdjan (wk 1) ‘utter words’: and-waurdjais Rom 9:20A ‘that you would talk
back to (God)’; cf. filu-waurdjaiþ (Mt 6:7) ‘you should (not) be verbose, babble’,
denom to filuwaurdei* ‘verbosity’ or a calque on Gk. batto-logeĩn ‘talk stammer-
ingly, babble repetitively’, Lat. multum loquī ‘(to) talk much’ (Marold 1881a: 171f.;
Velten 1930: 350); ubil-waurdjan (Mk 9:39) ‘speak evil (of)’, deadj to ubilwaurds
‘slanderous’ (§7.8.2; cf. Bucsko 2011: 60, 63) or a calque on Gk. kako-logeĩn ‘speak
evil (of)’, Lat. male loquī ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 350); more generally, all 17 com-
pounds (only 3 verbal) based on waurd ‘word’ are likely Greek calques (Kind
1901: 4–9)
wopjan (wk 1) ‘call, cry’ (well attested, plus at- 6x, uf- 4x)
wrohjan (wk 1) ‘accuse’ (6x, plus fra- 1x)
5.22 Primarily stative and modal verbs
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)
5.23 The preterite present (prt prs)

This class has preterite forms but a temporal present (result-)stative meaning.17
Table 5.4 has the paradigms of Goth. wáit ‘know’ (= Gk. oĩda ‘I know’, oĩde ‘knows’;
see 1.witan in App.), þarf ‘need’, kann ‘know, be acquainted with’, mag ‘can’, skal ‘owe;
must’, áih ‘possess’ (CGG 187–93; Mossé 1956: 141–3; GG 167–70).
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).
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).
Table 5.4 Some Gothic preterite presents
1.witan þaúrban* 1.kunnan magan* skulan* [-aihan]
nonpast
sg 1 wáit þarf kann mag skal áih

2 wáist þarft kan(n)t magt skalt áiht*
3 wáit þarf* kann mag skal áih
pl 1 witum þaúrbum kunnum magum skulum áigum
2 wituþ þaúrbuþ kunnuþ maguþ/d skuluþ áihuþ
3 witun þaúrbun kunnun magun skulun áigun
preterite
sg 1 wissa kunþa skulda

2 wisseis kunþes
3 wissa þaúrfta kunþa mahta skulda áihta
5.23 The preterite present 211
Table 5.4 Continued

1.witan þaúrban* 1.kunnan magan* skulan* [-aihan]
pl 1 wissedum* kunþedum mahtedum skuldedum

2 wisseduþ
3 wissedun kunþedun mahtedun skuldedun áihtedun
nonpast optative
sg 1 witjáu kunnjáu18 magjáu skuljáu

2 witeis kunneis mageis
3 witi kunnei magi skuli áigi
pl 1 þaúrbeima mageima
2 witeiþ/d þaúrbeiþ kunneiþ mageiþ skuleiþ áigeiþ
3 kunneina áigeina
preterite optative
sg 1 wissedjáu
2 wissedeis áihtedeis
3 wissedi kunþedeiþ mahtedi skuldedi
pl 1
2 skuldedeiþ
3 wissedeina mahtedeina
participles
nonpast witands þaúrbands* kunnands magands áigands

pret (þaúrfts*) kunþs mahts skulds
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).
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).
5.24 Some functions of the preterite presents
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’.
Magan* ‘can’ with nonprefixed, nontelic, imperfective infinitive encodes epistemic

meaning (Leiss 2012, 2018). There are twice as many negated clauses as affirmative,
and in negated clauses (mostly ga-)prefixed infinitives prevail.
19 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.
5.24 Functions of the preterite presents 213
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).
Ogan* (*agan? Bammesberger 1986c: 673 n. 1) ‘fear, be afraid’ expresses mundane

fear about what may happen (Carlson 2012) and is well attested, e.g. og (4x, 1 dupl)
‘I am afraid’, nonpast optative forms, e.g. 2sg wileis ei ni ogeis wuldufni (Rom
13:3A/C) ‘do you want to not fear authority?’; 2sg impv ogs (Rom 11:20A) ‘be afraid’
and ni ogs þus (Lk 5:10, Jn 12:15) ‘do not be afraid’ (§5.23); cf. 2pl opt ni ogeiþ izwis
(Mt 10:28, Jn 6:20) ‘do not be afraid’; 1/3sg pret ohta, 3pl pret ohtedun (~ uhtedun
1x), and forms of the PrP ogands. There is no preterite participle. For the syntax with
reflexive, cf. Herodis (nom) ohta sis (dat) Iohannen (acc) (Mk 6:20) ‘Herod feared
John’. Ogan* has a causative ogjan (wk 1) (Neh 6:19) ‘to frighten, intimidate’ (García
García 2004: 326).
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.
(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).
5.25 The verb ‘be’

1. wisan ‘to be’ is a copula (frequently omitted), auxiliary (never omitted), and existen-
tial verb. Optative sijáis, sijái, sijáiþ replace the missing imperative. This verb has only
one participle, wisands ‘being’.
For the paradigm in Table 5.5, cf. Snædal (2009a: 161).
5.25–6 The verb 'be' and passive formations 215
Table 5.5 The Gothic verb ‘be’
nonpast opt pret pret opt
sg 1 im si(j)áu was wesjáu

2 is si(j)áis wast weseis
3 ist si(j)ái was wesi
du 1 siju sijáiwa* wesu* weseiwa*

2 sijuts* sijáits* wesuts* weseits*
pl 1 si(j)um sijáima wesum (12x) weseima

2 si(j)uþ, siud sijáiþ/d wesuþ weseiþ
3 sind sijáina wesun (freq) weseina
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).
5.26 Passive formations and constructions

It is not easy to distinguish periphrastic passives from similar-appearing structures
consisting of a stative or fientive (‘become’) verb with an adjective. Rittenhouse (2014)
discusses this issue in connection with the Old Saxon Heliand and the Old High
German Evangelienbuch. The latter, for instance, has 96 occurrences of werdan
‘become’ + PPP and 91 with an adjective. With wesan ‘be’ there are 216 examples with
PPP and 648 with an adjective (ibid. 61). Since both participles and adjectives can be
uninflected, agreement (concord) is not a necessary or sufficient criterion. Rittenhouse
(p. 94) concludes that grammaticalization of the passive was not completed by c9.
Such evidence, however, is of limited value. It is well known that syntactic changes can
occur long before the morphology catches up. Many examples of passive morphology
lagging behind the development of a syntactic passive have been documented (Miller
2002: 273–7; 2010: ii. 188; 2012: 37).21
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).
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
5.27 Periphrastic passives
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
(2) jūs miþ-ga-timridai sijuþ (Eph 2:22B)

you.pl with-prfx-build.PPP.nom.pl.m be.2pl
‘you are (being) built together’
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’
b) sa sunus meins . . . fralusans was

D.nom.sg.m son my lose.PPP.nom.sg.m be.3sg.pret
jah bigitans warþ (Lk 15:24)
and find.PPP.nom.sg.m become.3sg.pret
‘my son was lost and got found’
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’
(7) jah daupidai wesun allai in

and baptize.PPP.nom.pl.m were all.nom.pl.m in
Iaurdane aƕai fram imma (Mk 1:5)
Jordan.gen.pl water.dat.sg by him.dat.sg
‘and they were all baptized by him in the water of the Jordan’
(8) qinons þoz–ei wesun galeikinodos ahmane ubilaize

women nom.pl.f-rel were.3pl healed.nom.pl.f spirit.gen.pl evil.gen.pl
‘women who had been healed/cured of evil spirits’ (Lk 8:2)
(9) marei winda mikilamma waiandin ur-raisida was (Jn 6:18)
sea wind.dat great.dat blowing.dat up-raised.nom.sg.f was
‘the sea by a great wind blowing had been raised up’ (Katz 2016: 220)
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.
5.28 Infinitival passives and passive infinitives
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.’]
(11) qaþ þan du þaim atgaggandeim manageim daupjan fram

spoke then to those coming.down crowds baptize.inf by
sis (Lk 3:7)
refl.dat
‘he then spoke to the crowds coming down to be baptized by him’
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’
This is residual, normally replaced by a simple reflexive, as in (13) (cf. GE 210).

(13) þai–ei qemun hausjan imma jah hailjan sik (Lk 6:18)
nom.pl.m-rel came.3pl hear.inf him.dat and heal.inf refl.acc
‘(they) who came to hear him and to be healed’ (Gk. īathẽnai ‘id.’)
In the preterite system, there was a periphrastic passive infinitive formed with
wisan or more rarely wairþan (Bernhardt 1885: 101f.; cf. Lenk 1910: 256, 258). See (14).
(14) þo sei us-tauhana habaida wairþan
D.acc.sg.f f.rel out-drawn.nom.sg.f had.3sg become.inf
fram f(rauj)in garehsn (Sk 1.1.24–1.2.2)
by lord.dat.sg plan.acc.sg.f
‘the plan which was (predestined) to get-to-be fulfilled by the Lord’
The future time reference in (14) is a function of habaida + infinitive, which could
designate prospectivity and necessity (Kotin 1997: 488), the main means of expressing
predestination, which had no single exponent in Greek (Viteau 1893: 72f.).25
In object control structures (§9.22), passivity is likely a function of translation
rather than a fact of Gothic syntax:
(15) haihait at-wopjan ina (Mk 10:49)
ordered hither-call.inf him
‘he ordered him to be summoned’
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).
5.29 Skulds and mahts
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).
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’.
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.).
(22) þatei ni skuld ist þus haban qen broþrs

comp neg lawful is you.dat.sg have.inf wife brother.gen
þeinis (Mk 6:18)
your.gen.sg.m
‘that it is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife’
[Gk. hóti ouk éxestín soi ékhein tēn gunaĩka toũ adelphoũ sou ‘id.’]
(23) ni skuld ist lagjan þans in kaurbaunan* <kaurbanaun> (Mt 27:6)

neg legal is put.inf D.acc.pl.m in treasury.acc.sg
‘it is not legal (Gk. ouk éxestin) to put them (the coins) in the treasury’
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.
(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’
Although (25) is a unique example, and certainly not grammaticalized, it illustrates

a periphrastic construction that would become a passive infinitive elsewhere in
Germanic.
5.30 The verb ‘will’

Wiljan ‘will, be willing, wish, want’ is by origin an optative identical to Lat. velim ‘I’d
wish’, velīs ‘you’d like’, etc. (LHE2 219, 294), and therefore has only optative forms in
the nonpast tense system. It is called optative by Snædal. Some functions are arguably
indicative, but that is a matter of perspective. The preterite is a standard weak type and
has a separate optative. See the paradigm in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6 The verb ‘will’
nonpast pret pret opt
sg 1 wiljáu wilda wildedjáu*

2 wileis/z wildes* wildedeis*
3 wili wilda wildedi
pl 1 wileima wildedum wildedeima*

2 wileiþ/d wildeduþ wildedeiþ
3 wileina wildedun wildedeina*
The only participle is wiljands ‘willing’ with six different case forms attested. A 2du
wileits is attested at Mk 10:36.
5.31 The dual

The dual is an archaic category in Gothic (on the history, see Fritz 2011). Only one
example ((40) below) occurs in the Epistles (Kapteijn 1911: 265), none in the Bologna
fragment. It can accompany a dual pronoun (Mossé 1956: 178). Otherwise, there is much
variation: 16 plurals in dual contexts vs. 48 duals (Seppänen 1985; cf. GS 88).28 Duals
are native Gothic because NT Greek lost the dual, and Latin lost it prehistorically.
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’
(29) bidjats (Mk 10:38) ‘you two ask’

ni wituts* <wituþs> ƕis bidjats: maguts-u driggkan stikl
‘you two do not know (of) what you two are asking: can you two drink the cup?’
(30) bidjos (Mk 10:35) ‘we two ask’

laisari, wileima ei þatei þuk bidjos, taujais uggkis
‘teacher, we want that what we two ask you, you should do for us two’
(31) bi-gitats (2x) ‘you two find’

a) in þizaiei inngaggandans bigitats fulan asilaus gabundanana (Lk 19:30)
‘entering in which you two will find a donkey’s colt tied up’
b) inngaggandans in þo [baurg] bigitats fulan gabundanana (Mk 11:2)
‘entering into the city you two will find a colt tied up’
(32) driggkats (Mk 10:39) ‘you two drink’

þana stikl þanei ik driggka, driggkats
‘that cup that I drink, you two shall drink’
(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.
c) gaggats in þo baurg, jah gamoteiþ igqis manna (Mk 14:13)

‘go you two into the city, and a man will meet you two’
d) gaggats* <gaggast> afar þamma (Mk 14:13)
‘go you two after [i.e. follow] him’
(34) ga-hausideduts (Lk 7:22) ‘you two heard’

gateihats Iohannen þatei gaseƕuts jah gahausideduts
‘tell you two John what you two saw and heard’
(35) ga-laubjats (Mt 9:28) ‘you two believe’

ga-u-laubjats þatei magjau þata taujan
‘do you two believe that I can do this?’
(36) ga-leiþos (Jn 14:23) ‘we two come’

jah du imma galeiþos jah saliþwos at imma gataujos
‘and we two will come to him and we two will make our abode with him’
(37) ga-se uts (Lk 7:22) ‘you two saw’

(38) ga-taujos (Jn 14:23) ‘we two make/establish’

jah du imma galeiþos jah saliþwos at imma gataujos
‘and we two will come to him and we two will establish our abode with him’
(39) ga-teihats (Lk 7:22) ‘you two tell’ (impv ‘tell you two’)
(40) habos (1Cor 9:6A) ‘we two have’

þau ainz-u ik jah Barnabas ni habos waldufni du ni waurkjan?30
‘or do only I and Barnabas not have the power/right to not work (for a living)?’
(41) hirjats (Mk 1:17) ‘here.2du.impv’ (i.e. ‘follow’)

hirjats afar mis jah gatauja igqis wairþan nutans manne
‘follow you two after me and I will cause you two to become catchers of men’
(42) magu (Mk 10:39) ‘we two can’

iþ eis qeþun du imma: magu
‘and they said to him, We two can’
(43) maguts (Mk 10:38) ‘you two can’

ni wituts* <wituþs> ƕis bidjats: maguts-u driggkan stikl
30 For ains ‘one; only’ in focused position as the host of interrogative -u, see Buzzoni (2009: 39).
5.31 The dual 227
(44) qiþaits [2du opt] (3x) ‘you two should say’

a) jabai ƕas iggqis qiþai: duƕe þata taujats? qiþaits: þatei frauja þis
gairneiþ (Mk 11:3)
‘if anyone should say to you two, Why are you two doing this?,
you two should say that the lord desires it’
b) qiþaits þamma heiwafraujin þatei laisareis qiþiþ (Mk 14:14)
‘you two should say to the head of the household that the teacher says’
c) jabai ƕas inqis fraihnai: duƕe andbindiþ?
swa qiþaits du imma þatei frauja þis gairneiþ (Lk 19:31)
‘if anyone should ask you two, Why are you [pl] untying [it] (the colt),
thus should you two say to him, that the lord desires it’31
(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)’
(46) siju (Jn 10:30) ‘we two are’

ik jah atta meins ain siju
‘I and my father are one’32
(47) sitaiwa [1du opt] (Mk 10:37) ‘that we two sit’

jah ains af hleidumein þeinai sitaiwa in wulþau þeinamma
‘and one (the other) of us two sit at your left in your glory’
(48) taujats (2x) ‘you two do’

a) jabai ƕas iggqis qiþai: duƕe þata taujats? (Mk 11:3)
‘if anyone should say to you two, Why are you two doing this?’
b) ƕa taujats andbindandans þana fulan? (Mk 11:5)
‘what are you two doing, untying that colt?’
(49) wileits (Mk 10:36) ‘you two want’

iþ Iesus qaþ im: ƕa wileits taujan mik igqis?
‘and Jesus said to them, What do you two want me to do for you two’?
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).
(50) wituts* <wituþs> (Mk 10:38) ‘you two know’

ni wituts ƕis bidjats: maguts-u driggkan stikl
5.32 Tense and mood mismatches

This section briefly discusses some instances in which the Gothic choice of tense or
mood does not match the Greek text. The core equivalents are mentioned in §9.12.
A number of mismatches can be found in Odefey (1908: 71f.), Kapteijn (1911: 263ff.,
281f.), and especially Davis (1929). A peculiarity of the Gospel of John (5:45, 6:32, 42,
8:45, 14:9, 31, 19:4) is that Greek (nonhistorical) presents are translated with a Gothic
preterite (Stolzenburg 1905: 360; Francini 2009: 101).
One of the reasons for nonpasts rendering Greek perfects is that many perfects
assert states (Gering 1874: 302). This is clearest in an example like libandei dauþa
ist (1Tim 5:6A/B), with the adj dauþs ‘dead’, for Gk. zõsa téthnēken ‘(while) living,
she is dead’ (Lat. vīvēns mortua est). Consider also bi þans anaslepandans (1Thess
4:13B) for Gk. perì tõn kekoimēménōn ‘about those who have fallen/are asleep’.
Compare also wesum skalkinondans (Gal 4:3A) for Gk. ẽmen dedoulōménoi ‘we were
being slaves’.
In (51) a present participle is translated with a Gothic preterite and a perfect is ren-
dered with a nonpast tense.
(51) ist saei wrohida izwis, Moses, du þammei jūs weneiþ (Jn 5:45)
‘he is the one who has been accusing you: Moses, in whom you hope’
[Gk. éstin ho katēgorõn hūmõn, Mōsẽs, eis hòn hūmeĩs ēlpíkate ‘id.’,
Lat. est quī accūsat/accūset vōs Mō(y)sēs, in quō vōs spērātis/spērāstis
‘there is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have (set) your hope’]
Nonprefixed wrohida could indicate an unbounded accusation but not extending

into the future, e.g. ‘there is one who has been accusing you, (namely) Moses, in whom
you continue to place your trust’. The Greek passage has a PrP katēgorõn ‘accusing’
and a pf ēlpíkate ‘you have set your hope’. The Latin versions are split between pr
spērātis ‘you hope’ and pf spērāstis ‘you (have) hoped’. Marold (1892: 73) claims that
weneiþ follows Vet. Lat. a c d e f. The preterite was an option: wenida du guda (1Tim
5:5A/B) for Gk. ēlpiken epì tòn33 theón ‘she has (fixed) her hope on God’ (Kapteijn
1911: 264).
The pret wrohida for the PrP katēgorõn ‘accusing’ is normal. In some temporal
expressions, the Greek present represents a span of time that is best captured by the
Gothic preterite (Kapteijn 1911: 320):
33 So the Byzantine main text. The Alexandrian MSS favor no article.

5.32 Tense and mood mismatches 229
(52) fram þamma daga ei hausidedum,

ni ƕeilaidedum faur izwis bidjandans (Col 1:9B)
‘since the day that we heard, we have not stopped praying for you’
[Gk. aph’ hẽs hēmérās ēkoúsamen, ou pauómetha hupèr hūmõn proseukhómenoi
‘from which day we heard, we do not stop praying over you’]
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’]
(54) þizei weis kunþedum attan jah aiþein (Jn 6:42)

‘whose father and mother we have known’ for Gk. oídamen ‘we know’
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’]
This is true of a temporal rendering of a participle as well (Kapteijn 1911: 320):

(56) saei hlefi, þanaseiþs ni hlifai (Eph 4:28A/B)
‘he who has been stealing must no longer steal’
[Gk. ho kléptōn mēkéti kleptétō ‘the one stealing shall no longer steal’]
(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).
Another possibility is attraction to the surrounding preterites: ni þatei attan se i

as, nibai saei was fram attin, sa sa attan. That is not grammatically necessary but
could be a discourse narrative feature, recounting everything as a series of past events
and states. Of course the pattern of (56) also fits because the preterite expresses continuity
from the past to the present, as also in (58).
(58) iþ guda awiliuþ izei* <ize> gaf unsis sigis (1Cor 15:57A)
‘but thanks [be] to God, who has been giving us victory’
[Gk. tõi dè theõi kháris tõi didónti hēmĩn tò nĩkos
‘thanks [be] to God, the one giving us victory’]
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
(61) ibai qiþiþ gadigis35 du þamma digandin (Rom 9:20A)

‘the moulded thing won’t say to the one moulding (it), will it?’
[Gk. mē ereĩ tò plásma tõi plásanti ‘ . . . to the one having moulded (it)’]
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’]
(63) gawaknandans þan gaseƕun wulþu is (Lk 9:32)

‘waking up then they saw his glory’
[Gk. diagrēgoresantes dè eĩdon tēn dóxan autoũ ‘having woken up . . . ’]
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 233
3) Nontransitivizing/Nonperfective (durative, ingressive, punctualizing)

(a) fight (*battles/enemies) on
(b) type (*the essay) away
c) Nonspatial and nonaspectual (tell someone off, work off (a debt), etc.)
d) Scalar/Evaluative (overeat, undervalue)
e) Comparative (outcook, outeat)
While adpositions and particles tend to be transitive and intransitive members
of the same class, small clause particles (as, for), if they are indeed particles, can be
transitive. Adpositions are Ground-introducing elements expressing a spatial relation;
particles are Figure-introducing (Svenonius 2004). Particles, unlike their prepositional
counterparts, enter into derivation, e.g. to up the prices, up(p)-ity. Many examples can
be found in Dunkel (2014).
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
Table 6.1 The main Gothic prepositions
P Case Meanings
af dat ‘from (off, out of)’; partitive; ‘to, at, on’

afar dat ‘behind; after; in accordance with’
acc ‘after’ (temporal)
ana dat ‘on, upon; at, in, by’
acc ‘in(to), onto’ (incl. addition); ‘upon; against’
and acc ‘throughout’ (holistic); ‘into; upon; along’
at dat ‘at’ (time, place, amazement); ‘to; upon; beside, with; from; for’
acc ‘at’ (4x, 2 dupl) with designations of time
bi dat ‘by, at; for, on behalf of; on, against; according to’
acc ‘around; about, concerning; upon’; ‘at’ (amazement); ‘in, by’ (basis); ‘within’
du dat ‘to’ (addressee, direction, time); ‘for’ (purpose)
faur acc ‘in front of, before’ (time and place); ‘for’ (behalf); ‘by, along’
faura dat ‘in front of, ahead of, before; beside, next to; for; from’
fram dat ‘by’ (agent, source); ‘for, on behalf of, concerning’; ‘from’ (time, space)
in gen ‘on account of, because of ’
dat ‘in; in the presence of; among’; ‘at’ (basis of emotion)
acc ‘into, in’
miþ dat ‘with’ (comitative, manner, means; not instrument)
þairh acc ‘through’ (space or means); ‘according to’ (Gospel superscription)
uf dat ‘under; at the time of ’
acc ‘under’
ufar dat ‘over’
acc ‘over; above; beyond’
und dat ‘(in return) for’ (5x) [mostly formulaic]
acc ‘until, (un)to’ (temporal); ‘up to’ (spatial)
us dat ‘from’ (incl. partitive), ‘out of ’
wiþra acc ‘against; toward’; ‘to’ (with andhafjan ‘respond, reply’)
(4) suns þata þrutsfill aflaiþ af imma (Mk 1:42)

‘at once the leprosy departed from him’
6.3–4 af, afar 235
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
Afar + dat (43x, 3 dupl) ‘behind, after’ is frequently used of motion/direction:

(6) jah iddjedun afar imma manageins filu (Mk 5:24)
and come.3pl.pret behind he.dat.sg crowd.gen.sg much
‘and a large crowd came behind (i.e. followed) him’
(7) laistei afar mis (Mt 8:22, 9:9, Lk 5:27)

follow.2sg.impv after I.dat.sg
‘follow after me’ (See Huth 1903: 23–5, and, for the Greek text Odefey 1908: 64.)
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’
In (9) afar indicates disposition toward (or pursuit of) a goal.

(9) ƕaiwa aglu ist þaim hugjandam afar
how hard.nom.sg.n is D.dat.pl.m inclining.dat.pl.m after
faihau in þiudangardja gudis galeiþan (Mk 10:24)
wealth.dat.sg in kingdom.acc.sg god.gen.sg go.inf
‘how hard is it for those disposed to wealth to enter the kingdom of God?’
In the unique (10), afar seems to indicate cause:

(10) afar waurda þeinamma wairpam natja (Lk 5:5)
after word.dat.sg.n your.dat.sg.n cast.1pl net.acc.pl
‘following your word, we’ll lower the nets’
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
(12) a) ei qimands lagjais ana þo handuns (Mk 5:23)

‘that coming, you may lay hands upon her’
b) saiada ana airþa (Mk 4:31)
‘it is sowed onto (i.e. into) the earth’ (Thomason 2008: 288)
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’
(14) qam and allans gaujans Iaurdanaus (Lk 3:3)

went.3sg throughout all regions Jordan.gen.sg
‘he went throughout all the regions of the Jordan’
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
(17) jah so baurgs alla garunnana was at daura (Mk 1:33)

‘and the whole city was gathered near the door’ (tr. Thomason 2006: 58)
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’
(19) at Paitrau qiþandin (Bl 1v.23)

‘Peter saying’, ‘as Peter said’
(20) at wisandin auhumistin waihstastaina silbin Xristau Iesu (Eph 2:20B)

‘Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone’ (§7.4)
[Gk. gen abs óntos akrogōniaíou autoũ Khristoũ Iēsoũ (Byz. Iēsoũ khristoũ)]
Attendant circumstance is a form of accompaniment, as in (21).

(21) iþ f(rauj)ins · at afleta | frawaurhte jah | fragift weihis ah|mins (Sk 3.3.19–22)
‘but at (accompanying) the Lord’s forgiveness of sins [§4.23],
(he promised) also the gift of the holy spirit’
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?’
(24) jah saliþwos at imma ga-taujos (Jn 14:23)

and abode.acc.pl.f at he.dat prfx-make.1du
‘and dwelling places with him we two (will) establish’
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
Examples like this are reanalyzable as a relationship of means, hence bi | garehsnai

gudis (Sk 8.3.17f.) ‘by (means of) God’s plan’. This use is common, e.g. lamba haitiþ bi
namin (Jn 10:3) ‘he calls his sheep by name’.
Abstract ‘about’ + acc is subsumed under ‘topic’ by Thomason (2006: 64ff.), but this
function is sentence-initial, as aþþan bi maujos . . . (1Cor 7:25A) ‘now concerning vir-
gins . . . ’ (Rousseau 2012: 129). It is also called circumference (Hewson in Hewson &
Bubenik 2006: 292) or area (Luraghi 2003: 47f., w. lit). Thomason counts 77 occurrences
in the Gospels; cf. bi þanei gameliþ ist (Mt 11:10, Bl 2r.9f. ~ gamelid Lk 7:27) ‘about whom/
which it has been written’; cf. also bi þanei jah Lukas insok (Bl 1v.24) ‘about whom also
Luke made a declaration’; bi þanei f(rauj)a qaþ (Bl 2r.11) ‘about whom the Lord spoke’, bi
ina (Bl 2r.14) ‘about him’, bi ana (Bl 2r.26, 2v.6, 10) ‘about whom’. Other examples include:
(29) þagkjandans bi ƕarjana qeþi (Jn 13:22)
deliberating.nom.pl.m about who.acc.sg speak.3sg.pret.opt
‘deliberating about whom he was speaking’
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
(30) ei usfullidedi izwar gaidw bi mein andbahti

that complete.3sg.opt your lack about my service
‘that he might compensate for your deficiency regarding service to me’ (Phil 2:30A/B)
From the hostile implication of surrounding is derived the metaphor of

contrariety:
(31) rūna nemun allai gudjans . . . bi Iesu

counsel take.3pl.pret all.nom.pl.m priest.nom.pl.m against Jesus.acc.sg
‘all the chief priests . . . took counsel against Jesus’ (Mt 27:1)
In (32), the dative occurs with a more literal sense of physical contact, rendering a
Greek P-less dative (§11.4; Klein 1992b: 13).
(32) bistugqun bi þamma razna jainamma

beat.3pl.pret against D.dat.sg.n house.dat.sg.n yon.dat.sg.n
‘(the winds) beat against that house’ (Mt 7:25)
For bi + acc as the basis or means, see (33).
(33) ni bi hlaib ainana libaid manna

neg by bread.acc.sg.m one.acc.sg.m live.3sg man.nom.sg.m
‘one does not live by bread alone’ (Lk 4:4)
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)’.
(34) bi Isakis gahaita barna sium (Gal 4:28B)

according.to Isaac.gen promise.dat child.nom.pl be.1pl
‘according to Isaac’s promise we are children’
The Gothic is a mistranslation, possibly a word-for-word rendering of the Lat. secun-

dum Isaac prōmissiōnis fīliī sumus ‘following Isaac, we are children of (the) promise’
(Gabelentz & Löbe 1848: 786; Kapteijn 1911: 324); cf. Gk. katà Isaák, epaggelíās tékna
esmén ‘after (the pattern of) Isaac, we are children of promise’.
The function of reason or cause in (35) and (36) can be an extension either of area
(Luraghi 2003: 327) or of means.
242 P-Words
(35) warþ andbahts ik bi gibai anstais gudis

become.1sg.pret servant I by gift.dat.sg grace.gen god.gen.sg
‘I became a servant by (because of) the gift of God’s grace’ (Eph 3:7B)
(36) ni bi waurstwam unsaraim ak bi seinai leikainai

neg by work.dat.pl our.dat.pl but by own.dat.sg.f purpose.dat.sg.f
‘not by (because of) our deeds, but by his own purpose’ (2Tim 1:9A/B)
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’
(43) so saurga izwara du fahedai wairþiþ (Jn 16:20)

D.nom.sg.f sorrow.nom your.nom.sg.f to joy.dat become.3sg
‘your sorrow will turn to joy’
(44) wairþiþ þata wraiqo du raihtamma (Lk 3:5)

become.3sg D.nom.sg.n crooked.nom.sg.n.wk to straight.dat.sg.n
‘the crooked will become (be made) straight’
This is a common construction in the Germanic languages (Bernhardt 1882: 8).

Du often expresses purpose, as in ni du gawargeinai qiþa (2Cor 7:3A/B) ‘I say
(this) not for condemnation’. The purposive with du often occurs in tandem with a
244 P-Words
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’
Du plus a verbal noun can be equivalent to an infinitive, as in (46) and (47).

(46) þat–ei ist all du riurein (Col 2:22A/B)
nom.sg.n-rel is all for corruption.dat
‘which is all to perish’
(47) waldufnja þammei frauja fragaf mis du

authority which.dat lord.nom give.3sg.pret I.dat for
ga-timreinai jah (~ jan A) ni du ga-taurþai (2Cor 13:10A/B)
prfx-building.dat and neg for prfx-tearing.dat
‘the authority which the Lord gave me for building up, and not for tearing down’
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’
(51) jah galaiþ faur gard (Mk 14:68)

and go.3sg.pret in.front.of house.acc.sg
‘and he went in front of the house’ (i.e. into the outer courtyard)
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)
(53) faur ina winnan (Phil 1:29B)

‘to suffer for him’ (i.e. ‘on his behalf ’, not substitutive ‘in his place’)
Faur can signal an entity or abstraction as object of support:

(54) jah miþ bal|þein faur sunja | insakandin (Sk 8.3.20ff.)
and with boldness for truth arguing.dat.sg.m
‘and boldly arguing for (i.e. on behalf of) the truth’
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’
(57) 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’
(58) Iesus . . . fairgreipands barn ga-satida faura sis (Lk 9:47)

Jesus taking child prfx-set before refl.dat
‘Jesus, taking a child, set (him) in front of him’11
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’
(60) ni magandans neƕa qiman faura manageim (Mk 2:4)

neg being.able:nom.pl.m near come.inf for crowd.dat.pl
‘not being able to come near for (i.e. because of) the crowds’
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’
(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
‘guard us from this generation’
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’
Because it designates origination, fram is frequent with people as the originator of

an entity or the initiator of a process (M. Krause 1995: 7f.), e.g. fram guda (freq) ‘from
God’ (Zych 1981: 49). This contrasts with af in (64).
(64) sa weinatains ni mag akran bairan af sis silbin (Jn 15:4)
the branch neg can fruit bear.inf from refl self
‘the branch cannot bear fruit by itself ’
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)
Both geographical origin and passive agent occur in (66).

(66) qam Iesus fram Nazaraiþ Galeilaias jah daupiþs was fram Iohanne (Mk 1:9)
‘Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John’
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’
Despite the relationship between (animate) comitative and (inanimate) instrument

(Stolz et al. 2006: 35, 356), they have different exponents in most languages outside
of Europe (ibid. 389). Since renewal of the comitative function is typical (ibid. 392f.),
miþ- enhancement of the dative occurred there, relegating the instrumental to the
bare dative case. This conforms to the observation that in the absence of comitative-
instrument syncretism, only the latter (for Gothic the dative) can have the same
expression as goal (Stolz et al. 2006: 38). Comitatives evolve into instrumentals
(ibid. 358, 362f.). On the account of Stolz et al., it is unexpected that miþ expresses
manner, which develops from instrument (ibid. 356), but Latin has the same distribu-
tion of cum ‘with’ in comitatives and manner adjuncts but not true instruments
(Pinkster 2015: 866f., 878f., 897ff.). By contrast, German mit ‘with’ is generalized to
tool, instruments more generally, means of transportation, and many other functions
(Stolz et al. 2006: 41–8).
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
(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
(76) ei ni þugkjaima swe þlahsjandans izwis

comp neg seem.1pl.opt as frightening.nom.pl.m you.pl
þairh bokos
through letter.acc.pl
‘that we not appear as (if) trying to terrify you with letters’ (2Cor 10:9B)
Many examples of this kind are recorded in Naber (1879: 7ff.).
Another extension of path is intermediary (Luraghi 2003: 327), as in (77, 78).
(77) ainshun ni qimiþ at attin niba þairh mik
anyone neg come.3sg to father.dat unless through I.acc.sg
‘no one comes to the father except through me’ (Jn 14:6)
(78) awiliudo guda þairh Iesu Xristu (Rom 7:25A)

awi|liudo guda meinamma þair Iesu Xristu (Bl 1r.23f.)
‘I thank (my) God through Jesus Christ’
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’
(83) at ni wisand[e]in al|jai waihtai ufar |

at neg being.dat.sg.f other.dat.sg.f thing.dat.sg.f over
þans fimf hlaibans . . . (Sk 7.2.14ff.)
D.acc.pl.m five loaf.acc.pl.m
‘there being no other thing beyond those five loaves’
(84) þamma mahteigin ufar all taujan maizo þau

D.dat.sg.m able.dat.sg.m.wk over all do inf more than
bidjam (Eph 3:20A/B)12
ask.1pl
‘to the one (who is) able to do over and above more than we ask’
The dative or accusative can indicate superiority, as in (85) and (86).

(85) nist siponeis ufar laisari seinana (Lk 6:40)
neg.is student.nom.sg over teacher.acc.sg poss.refl:acc.sg.m
‘the student is not above (i.e. superior to) his teacher’
12 MS A has giban to be deleted before þau, and B has bidjan for bidjam.
6.17–18 ufar, und 253
(86) nist siponeis ufar laisarja nih skalks ufar

neg.is student.nom.sg over teacher.dat.sg nor slave.nom.sg over
fraujin seinamma (Mt 10:24)
master.dat.sg poss.refl:dat.sg.m
‘a student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master’
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’
See also fram mis silbin ‘id.’ (§6.12).

One of the idiomatic uses of us is us dailai (1Cor 13:10, 12A) ‘in part’, equivalent to
the adverb suman ‘partly, in part’. Also used adverbially are us gaþagkja (2Cor 9:6A/B 2x)
‘sparingly’ and us lustum (Philem 14) [out of desires] ‘voluntarily’, with a margin gloss
gabaurjaba ‘willingly’ (Zych 1981: 76–9).
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
(94) þugkeiþ izwis ei sunjoma uns wiþra izwis

seems you.dat.pl comp excuse.1pl.opt us you.acc.pl
‘have you been supposing that we vindicate ourselves to your face?’ (2Cor 12:19A)
Wiþraïddja ina (Jn 11:20) ‘she went to meet him’ is a face-to-face encounter; cf. (95).
(95) alla so baurgs usiddja wiþra Iesu (Mt 8:34)
‘the entire town came out to (meet) Jesus’
Wiþra supposedly indicates reason in (96) ‘because of your hardheartedness’
(Thomason 2006: 77), but ‘against’ fits perfectly: ‘against (i.e. to combat) your . . . ’
(96) wiþra harduhairtein izwara gamelida izwis þo anabusn
against hardheartedness your wrote.3sg you.dat.pl D precept
‘against your hardheartedness, (Moses) wrote you this commandment’ (Mk 10:5)
As an extension of ‘facing/against’, wiþra can indicate immediate juxtaposition:
(97) alla so managei wiþra marein ana
all D.nom.sg.f crowd.nom.sg against lake.acc on
staþa was (Mk 4:1)
shore.dat was
‘the entire crowd was right against (hard by) the lake on the shore’
6.21 Minor prepositions

Gothic had several Ps of lower frequency, not necessarily less important. See Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Minor Gothic prepositions

P Case Meanings
alja dat ‘except’ (1x)
bisunjane acc? ‘about’
fairra dat ‘far (off), away’ (an adverb?)
hindar dat ‘behind, beyond’ (location)
acc ‘behind, beyond’ (motion)
inu(h) acc ‘without’

(continued )
6.22–3 alja, bisunjane 257
ne a dat ‘near’ (perhaps an adverb)
ufarjaina dat ‘beyond’ (1x) (probably an adverb)
ufaro gen ‘above, (up)on’ (2x)
dat ‘over’ (4x)
undar acc ‘under’ (1x)
undaro dat ‘under’ (2x)
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
Bisunjane ‘about’ occurs 9x (incl. 2 examples in cod. Bon.). It is mostly an adverb,

e.g. in þos bisunjane haimos (Lk 9:12) ‘to the villages about, to the surrounding
villages’, þis bisunjane landis (Lk 4:37) ‘of the land about, of the surrounding district’,
bisunjan|e uns[ibj]a[i gag]gand · (Bl 1r.4f.) ‘the wicked walk about’, and the contextless
[……/.]jane unsis (Bl 1r.3) (Falluomini 2017).
In several passages, bisunjane seems to function as a P.
(99) ohtedun allos þiudos þos bisunjane unsis
feared.3pl all.nom.pl.f nation.nom.pl D.nom.pl.f about we.acc?
‘all the nations about us were afraid’ (Neh 6:16)
(100) us þiudom þaim bisunjane unsis (Neh 5:17)
from nation.dat.pl D.dat.pl.f about we.acc?
‘from the nations that are round about us’
Unsis in these passages is catalogued as accusative by Snædal. That should make

bisunjane a true P, except that he, Streitberg (1910), Wright (1954: 311), and Köbler
(1989: 83f.) classify all examples of it as adverbs. Lehmann (GED 73) lists it as both an
adverb and a P but does not specify the case. Because of the case ambiguity of unsis, it
258 P-Words
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’
The idea of an accusative complement of bisunjane because of bi ‘around, about’

(e.g. Kieckers 1927: 18) presupposes compositionality. Kieckers’ Greek parallel of
kúklōi + acc in Herodotus proves nothing for Gothic. Another possibility for unsis in
(99) and (100) is dative (Bernhardt 1885: 92), because adverbs can be accompanied by
a referential-type dative (see fairra and ne a below).
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’
For additional examples and discussion, see Naber (1879: 18ff.).
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
In several passages ne a is accompanied by a dative, e.g.

(107) siuks was neƕa dauþau (Phil 2:27A/B)
‘sick was (he), near (to) death’
(108) garehsns bi | ina neƕa andja | was (Sk 3.1.10ff.)

‘the plan regarding him was near an end’
Ne a is listed as both an adverb and a preposition by Bezzenberger (1873: 73),

Schwahn (1873: 66), Streitberg (1910: 99f., 1920: 181), Kieckers (1960: 274), W. Krause
(1968: 199), Köbler (1989), Klein (1992b: 9), and M. Krause (1995: 26). Thomason
(2006: 81) labels it an ‘improper preposition’, which explains nothing. What is at issue
is whether ne a has a case feature or the dative is referential. This is difficult to test
in a dead language, but the fact that ne a occurs only with the dative, even in con-
texts of motion and directionality, may suggest that the dative is referential
(cf. Winkler 1896: 84f., 193f.)—unless, of course, dative is lexically specified. But
since ne a is adverbial in most of its occurrences, a lexically specified case feature is
unexpected. Also, the derivative ne jan* (2x) ‘cause to become near’ makes use of a
proximous dative: wesun . . . imma ne jandans sik allai (Lk 15:1) ‘all drew near to him’
(cf. Piper 1874: 2).
Ne (adv 1x) seems to take acc: atiddja ne razn (Lk 15:25) ‘he came near to the
house’, but razn can be an old goal acc, like Germ. heim ‘home’ (Sturtevant 1931: 62).
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’
(112) jah þu sijais ufaro fimf baurgim (Lk 19:19)

‘and you are to be over five cities’
6.30 undar, undaro
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’
(115) ushrisjaiþ mulda þo undaro fotum izwaraim (Mk 6:11)

‘shake off the dust that (is) under your feet’
6.31 Phrasal prepositions

Phrasal Ps are frequent crosslinguistically. Many Ps have a phrasal origin; cf. Eng.
amid, originally ‘on (the) mid (of)’, or beside from ‘by (the) side (of)’.
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’.
6.32 Prepositional adjacency

Prepositions are normally adjacent to their heads. Adjacency is violated only under a
few well-defined conditions (GrGS 244ff.):
1) When a phrasal satellite precedes the noun, the P precedes the entire phrase,
e.g. faur hanins hruk (Mt 26:75) ‘before the rooster’s crowing’.
2) A P is separated from the noun by a clitic or clitic string, e.g. uz-uh allis ufarful-
lein hairtins rodeid munþs is (Lk 6:45) ‘for out of the abundance (overflow) of
the heart his mouth speaks’. Rousseau (2011: 317, 2012: 253) cites many examples.
3) Prepositions can be gapped in repeated strings, e.g. bi Twra jah Seidona (Mk
3:8) ‘around Tyre and Sidon’.
Of course 3) is not obligatory; cf. gataihun in baurg jah in weihsa (Lk 8:34) ‘they led
into the city and into the country’, at-sai du þus silbin jah du laiseinai (1Tim 4:15B)
‘pay attention to yourself and to the teaching’.
6.33 Summary of spatial P-functions

Table 6.3 is slightly abbreviated from M. Krause (1995: 17). Rousseau (2012: 120ff.)
gives a similar model but includes the deictic adverbs in §3.31. He also has a model of
the temporal oppositions: before : after, in/at, duration, approximation, etc. (ibid. 124ff.),
and notional relations: origin/source, means/instrument, result/goal, etc. (ibid. 127f.).17
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
Table 6.3 Spatial relations of Gothic Ps

Relation
Inside Outside
Contact No contact
over in front
— —
under behind
ufar + dat faura + dat

UBI? in + dat ana + dat — faur + acc
undaro + dat —
uf + dat hindar + dat
ufar + acc faura + dat

QUO? in + acc (ufaro + gen) — faur + acc
ana + acc undar + acc —
uf + acc hindar + acc
ufar + acc
QUA? þairh + acc and + acc
—
UNDE? us + dat fram + dat

fairra + dat
af + dat
af + dat
af + dat
fram + dat
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)
6.34 Verbal Prefixes

Table 6.4 lists the most frequent uses of the verbal prefixes (cf. Douse 1886: 120–5;
Rousseau 2012: 273ff.).
264 P-Words
Table 6.4 The main Gothic preverbs

Prefix Core semantic function
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’.
6.35 Gothic and Greek prefix correspondences

Table 6.5 (from Rice 1932: 128–31) presents an overview of the relative frequency of the
correspondences between Greek and Gothic preverbs.
Table 6.5 Gothic preverbs and Greek correspondences

Gothic Corresponding Greek preverbs
af- apo- ‘away, out of, off ’ 110x

ana- ana- ‘to(ward), at’ 22x, ‘repetition’ 8x
and- apo- ‘privative’ 18x (cf. West 1982: 157f.), anti- ‘against’ 13x
at- pros- ‘toward’ 35x, eis- ‘toward’ 13x, kata- ‘against’ 28x, para- ‘from one to another’
25x, ‘alongside, by, at’ 12x, en- ‘at, near, by’ 5x
bi- peri- ‘around’ 44x, en- ‘near, by’ 8x
dis- dia- ‘asunder’ 10x
faur(a)- pro- ‘before, earlier’ 19x
fra- apo- ‘from’ 35x, ‘pejorative’ 55x, kata- ‘pejorative’ 13x
ga- apo- ‘completely’ 59x, dia- ‘throughout, completely’ 18x, ek- ‘utterly’ 3x, sun- ‘with,
together’ 40x, kata- in various figurative uses 78x (cf. Pollak 1971)
in- en- ‘in, at’ 14x
inn- eis- ‘into’ 43x esp. when Greek has no PP or duplicated eis (Kjellman 1947)
miþ- sun- ‘with, together’ 53x
þairh- dia- ‘through’ 11x
uf- hupo- ‘under’ (static), ‘subject to’ 16x
ufar- epi- ‘over, above’ 12x
us- ana- ‘up(ward)’ 69x, ‘increasing from zero, coming into being’ 50x
ek ‘out’ 164x, ‘utterly’ 16x, apo- ‘away (from), out of ’ 28x
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.
6.36 The lexical categories of preverbs

Preverbs have traditionally been classified according to their status as adverbs,
prepositions, or inseparable particles.
Exclusively prepositional are af-, at-, bi-, du- ‘to(wards), against’, hindar- ‘behind,
beyond, over, among, across’, in- ‘in, on, among, at; on account of; about’, þairh-, uf-,
ufar-, und- ‘unto, until, up to, for’, us-, wiþra- ‘against, in return for’ (but see wiþraga-
motjan in §4.43). Adverbial alone are inn- ‘in, within’ and ut ‘out, forth’.
Miþ is both an adverb ‘along (with)’ and a preposition ‘with, among, together
with; through, by, near’. Likewise, ana- adv ‘there(up)on’ differs from P ‘in, into;
on, onto, upon; to, against’, and faura- ‘along, in front of; before, for, on behalf
of ’ is both.
Nineteen of twenty-one prepositions occur as preverbs. The two that do not are not
frequent as Ps either (Buscko 2011: 47f.). These are alja ‘except, unless’ (§6.22) and
ne a ‘near’ (§6.27).
The inseparable particles are dis- ‘apart, away; fragmentation’ (Buckalew 1964:
92), fair- (cf. fairra ‘far’) ‘intensive’, fra- ‘forward; converseness (West 1982: 158f.);
pejorative’, ga-, missa- ‘false’, twis- ‘apart’. Inn- ‘in(to)’ and ut- ‘out of ’ are inseparable
unless another preverb is present, e.g. inn-gaggaiþ (Mt 7:13) ‘go in’ but at-gaggands
inn (Mt 9:25) ‘entering in’ (Ryder 1951: 204f., 208). Beyond that, inseparable is a
misleading term. Clitics can intervene between them and the verb, as in diz-uh-
þan-sat ijos reiro (Mk 16:8) ‘and then trembling seized them’ to dis-sitan* [sit
apart] ‘beset’. Most of the examples of tmesis are triggered by -uh ‘and’ or -u ‘Q’
(Grewolds 1932: 3–6).
The boundary between a prefix and a verb differs from that between a prefix and
clitic, as shown by us-iddja (1sg 2x, 3sg 25x) ‘came out’ vs. uz-uh-iddja (Jn 16:28) ‘and
I came out’ (e.g. Jacobsohn 1920: 158; Eythórsson 1995: 124).
A fifth of the preverbs tend to create idiomatic verbal constructs. These are
du-, fair-, missa-, twis-, þairh-, und/unþa-. Another fifth is less often idiomatizing: af-,
ana-, at-, faur(a)-, ga-, ufar-. The following do not create idiomatic constructs: afar-,
full(a)-, hindar-, miþ-, wiþra- (Bucsko 2011: 138ff.).
6.37 Strings of preverbs 267
6.37 Strings of preverbs

Co-occurring preverbs have a canonical order, shown in the alphabetical listing in
Table 6.6 (Grewolds 1932: 8f.; Ryder 1949: 19–30; Wolmar 2015: 36).
Table 6.6 The order of co-occurring preverbs
ana-in- faur-bi- inn-ga- miþ-fra- miþ-inn-ga-

du-at- faura-ga- inn-uf- miþ-ga- miþ-us-
du-ga- inn-at- miþ-ana- miþ-in- ut-us-
The order of preverbs is always presented as a taxonomic list, but it is principled

and the directional-spatial ones correspond in the unmarked case to the hierarchy
of adpositions: source > goal > place (Pantcheva 2011); cf. Eng. from under
(Pol. z pod), from on (*under from, *on from), etc. (Miller 2014b: 96–9).
For ‘to’ before ‘at’, cf. (117) with two prefixes corresponding to one in Gk. pros-
érkhesthai ‘go to, approach’ (Casaretto 2014: 51).
(117) du-at-iddjedun imma þai blindans (Mt 9:28)
to-at-came.3pl he.dat D.nom.pl.m blind.nom.pl.m
‘the blind came up to him’
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).
Table 6.7 The order of ni among preverbs

P5 P4 P3 P2 P1
miþ- inn- ni- ana- faur- at- ga-

du- bi- in-
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
adverb misses the point because, in a construct like miþ-inn-galeiþan*, adjunction of

miþ to the verb presupposes adjunction of inn as well.
For an example of inn, ni, and at, see (118).
(118) sa-ei inn ni at-gagg-iþ þairh daur (Jn 10:1)
nom.sg.m-rel in neg to-go-3sg through door
‘he who does not enter through the door’
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.
6.38 A purely structural prefix?

A thorny problem with a long history (see Wolmar 2015: 32) involves what appears to
be the verb ga-sandjan ‘send’ with several left-edge clitics (§11.12) and adjunction of
the preposition miþ to the verb (§6.43) in (119).19
(119) ga-h-þan-miþ-sandidedum imma broþar (2Cor 8:18A ~ ga-þ-þan- B)
ga (u)h þan miþ sandi-dedum imma broþar
prfx and then with send-1pl.pret him.dat brother.acc.sg
‘and we then sent with him the brother’
[Gk. sun-epémpsamen dè met’ autoũ tòn adelphón
with-send.1pl.aor and with him the brother]
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
6.39 Optional and obligatory particle adjunction

Some lexical categories and syntactic contexts require adjunction of all verbal particles
while others do not (Ryder 1949, 1951). The infinitive is among the lexical categories
that require adjunction of all particles (cf. Eythórsson 1995: 37f.), as in (120).
(120) ni mag inn|galeiþan in þiudangardja gudis (Sk 2.3.20f.)
‘he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’
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
(121) jah at-tauh inn Paitru (Jn 18:16)

and to-brought.3sg in Peter
‘and he brought Peter in’
(122) jah miþþanei inn-at-tauh-un berusjos þata barn (Lk 2:27)

and when in-to-brought-3pl parents D.acc.sg.n child.acc.sg.n
‘and when the parents brought that child in’
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.
6.40 Preposition incorporation

Preposition (P-) incorporation involves removing a preposition from its noun
(or DP/NP) and prefixing it to the verb.22 English has residues, as in the river over-
flowed its bank, from the river flowed over its bank. For Old English cf. (123).
(123) P-incorporation (Old English)
a) þonne mōt hē feohtan on hine (Laws of Ælfred 76 §42.4)
then can he fight.inf on him.acc
‘then he can fight against him’
b) gif hine mon on wōh onfeohteð (Laws of Ælfred 76 §42.6)
if him.acc man wrongly on.fight.3sg
‘if a man fights against him wrongly’
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.
6.41 P-incorporation in Gothic

As in Old English (§6.40) and other older Indo-European languages, P-incorporation
in Gothic remained an option with certain P-words and certain verbs. Also as in other
languages, the object stranded by adjunction of the P to the verb retains the case asso-
ciated with the P. Many examples of incorporated Ps with accusative and dative
complements in syntax can be found in Grimm (1837: 804–69), Köhler (1864: 44–8),
Van der Meer (1901: 42ff., 104), and Delbrück (1907: 201f.). Harbert (1978: 81ff.) is the
first to label the Gothic construction ‘preposition incorporation’.
In-agjan* (1x) ‘put fear into’ derives from *agjan in ins ‘put fear into them’:
(125) in-agida ins Iesus (Mt 9:30)
in(to)-cause.fear:3sg.pret they.acc Jesus.nom
‘Jesus warned them sternly’
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’
(130) warþ milhma ufar-skadwjands im (Mk 9:7)

got-to-be cloud over-shadowing.nom.sg.m they.dat
‘a cloud appeared, enveloping them’
The pair in (131) and (132) is slightly unexpected.

(131) at-gaggandei du aftaro attaitok
to-coming.nom.sg.f to behind touched.3sg
skauta wastjos is (Lk 8:44)
hem.dat.sg garment.gen.sg he.gen.sg
‘coming up behind, she touched the hem of his garment’
(132) duatgaggandei aftaro attaitok skauta wastjos is (Mt 9:20)

‘coming up behind, she touched the hem of his garment’
In (131) du is not a de-incorporation of du-at-gaggandei in (132). Rather, du has a null

object ‘coming up to [him] from the rear’ (W. Krause 1918: 99; listed as an ‘adverb’ 1.du
in Snædal). More incorporated Ps with null object can be found in Harbert (1978: 219).
6.42 Incorporation of miþ 273
6.42 Incorporation of miþ
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
þamma swaleik-amma ni miþ-mat-jan (1Cor 5:11A)

D.dat.sg.m such-dat.sg.m prohib with-eat-inf
‘but now I have written to you not to associate . . .
(and) with such a one not to eat’
[Gk. tōi toioútōi mēdè sun-esthíein ‘and (dè) with (sun) such not (mē) to eat’]
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.
6.43 P-incorporation and P-copy
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’
(138) þat - ei habaiþ af – nimada af imma (Lk 19:26)

acc.sg.n–rel have.3sg from-take.3sg.pass from 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
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.’]
To conclude this section, Gothic is somewhere between stage 3 (increasing opacity

of P-incorporation and optional P-copy) and stage 4 (total lexicalization and obliga-
tory Ps in syntax). The only P for which incorporation remains productive is miþ
‘with’. While a few others are attested, P-copy enjoys a relatively high frequency.
6.44 Preverb gapping?

Only preverbs with prepositional content have been said to be subject to reduction in
a repeated sequence, but even so the construction is rare. The early tradition cited two
examples (GrGS 245). The first is (141).23
(141) swa filu auk swe fauragameliþ warþ,
du unsarai laiseinai gameliþ warþ (Rom 15:4B)
‘for as much as was written down before (i.e. in the past),
(it) was written down for our instruction’
23 Thanks to George Dunkel for discussion of this section.

276 P-Words
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
Everyone (including Snædal) follows Streitberg in editing gasatjiþ . . . satjiþ to satjiþ . . .

gasatjiþ on the shaky grounds that the two must be reversed because the Greek text
has títhēsin . . . epitíthēsin ‘puts . . . puts on’. Pollak (1972: 51f.) objects on the grounds
that the Gothic forms are equivalent. A better reason is that Goth. ga- is not a match
to uf or ana in syntax, while in Greek, epi- matches the P epí ‘on(to)’ in syntax. That is,
there is no reason for ga- to pattern with epi-. If the Gothic text were in fact like the
Greek, one might expect (ga)satjiþ . . . *anasatjiþ. It is also possible that gasatjiþ estab-
lishes telicity and the following satjiþ exhibits preverb reduction (Pollak 1972: 52).
Several examples are cited by Pollak (1971: 27). One is (145).
24 French dépréverbation. Rousseau follows the terminology of Vaillant (1946) and others. Vaillant’s
examples involve historical replacements of prefixed by deprefixed verbs in Slavic and elsewhere.
(145) usbliggwandans ina insandidedun lausana. |

. . . iþ eis jah jainana bliggwandans . . . insandidedun lausana (Lk 20:10f.)
‘(severely) beating him they sent (him) away empty.
. . . but they also beating that man . . . sent (him) away empty’
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.
Note also that ga-domjan is repeated with no gapping in ga-domjandans, which is

expected because domjan and ga-domjan do not mean the same thing.
A seemingly clear example of preverb gapping occurs in (149).
(149) jabai ạṇḍnamt, ƕa ƕopis swe ni nemeis (1Cor 4:7A)
‘if you received (it), why do you boast as though you did not receive (it)?’
[Gk. élabes . . . hōs m lab n—no preverbs] (see swe in App.)
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).

7.2 Endocentric compounds 281
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.).
7.2 Endocentric compounds

In an endocentric formation, one of two merged words is a satellite and the other the
construct’s head which determines its lexical-syntactic category (Bloomfield 1933:
235). In English compounds, the head is on the right: [blow]V plus [pipe]N makes a
compound [N [blow]V [pipe]N ]N of the category N noun. Semantically, the class of
elements denoted by the compound tends to be a subset of the class denoted by the
head, e.g. a blowpipe is a subclass of pipes. Even if a greenhouse is not a house per se, it
is a structure resembling a house. Endocentric compounds are not reversible. A desk
warehouse and a warehouse desk are not the same.
In contemporary English, endocentric compounds are represented by the following
categories (Grd = gerund, Prt = participle, Ptc = particle, P = preposition):
N–N fantasy football, power nap Grd–N drinking water
N–A sky blue, stone cold, oil rich P–A overwide, underripe
A–A red hot, wide awake A–Prt new-fallen, easy-going, ill-bred
A–N fast food, software, wetsuit Ptc–N offprint, outgrowth, incrowd
282 Compounding
A–V sweet-talk, slow-bake, ill-treat Ptc–A superconfident, infrahuman

N–V spoonfeed, machine wash N–Prt poverty stricken, sun dried
V–N crashpad, blowpipe P–N afterthought, overéstimate
V–V jump start, glide-walk Ptc–V outeat, undercook, offset, outsource
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
(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).
7.4 N + N endocentrics in Gothic
aiza-smiþa (m -n-) ‘coppersmith’ (2Tim 4:14A): translates Gk. khalkeús ‘coppersmith,

metal worker, blacksmith’ (GGS 175), derived from khalkós ‘copper, bronze’
(**khakeús is an error in Karpov 2005a: 48); OE ārsmiþ ‘coppersmith’ and OHG
ērsmid ‘bronze-, coppersmith’ are rare and perhaps independent of the Gothic form
and coined after Lat. faber aerārius ‘id.’, since the compound does not exist in Low
German or Nordic (NCG 70); for Casaretto (NWG 451) the Gothic form also is a
“Lehnübertragung” (loan rendition) of Lat. faber aerārius. In other Germanic lan-
guages, the -u- stem *smiþ-u- ‘craftsman’ (EDPG 460) makes compounds, e.g. ON
ljuð-smiðr, ljóða-smiðr [song-smith] ‘poet’, OE wīg-smið [battle-smith] ‘warrior’,
OHG urteil-smid [judgment-smith] ‘judge’ (GED 23; cf. Karpov 2005a: 44); the -n-
stem in Gothic shows assimilation to the agentives (§8.23; Sturtevant 1933b: 208f.)
alewa-bagms (m -a-) ‘olive tree’ (sg nom Rom 11:17A, gen -bagmis Rom 11:17, 24A,
acc -bagm Rom 11:24A 2x, pl gen -bagme Lk 19:37): compounded of alewa-
(cf. alew* ‘(olive) oil’ §§1.1, 2.13) and a way of making tree names in Germanic; cf.
peika-bagms* (gen pl peikabagme Jn 12:13) ‘palm tree’ (Gk. phoĩnix ‘date-palm’3),
probably built on *pīka- (ON pík ‘spike’, OE pīc ‘point, spike’, etc.), a reference to the
lower leaflets on the leaf axes that turn into spines (Elis 1903: 12, w. lit; Ebbinghaus
1974);4 smakka-bagms ‘fig tree’ (Gk. sukẽ) built on smakka* (3x) ‘fig’;5 cf. baira-
bagms* (dat sg -bagma Lk 17:6 = Gk. sūkámīnos ‘mulberry tree’), for which the
initial constituent is disputed (NWG 384)
asilu-qairnus (f? -u-) [donkey-quern] ‘millstone (turned by a donkey)’ (Mk 9:42);
cf. OE esol-cweorn ‘id.’ (Karpov 2005b: 201), likely independent of the Gothic
compound which renders Gk. múlos onikós ‘millstone of/for an ass’ (NCG 70)
or better líthos mulikós ‘donkey millstone’ (Sturtevant 1937: 177; Weber 1991: 229;
NWG 371)
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
auga-dauro (n -n-) [eye-door] ‘window’ (acc 2Cor 11:33B), conceptualized as a door

for the eyes (NWG 238, w. lit). It translates Gk. thurís ‘window’, whose derivation
from thúrā ‘door’ seems to be reflected in the Gothic compound, but note OE ēag-
duru (f), OHG ouga-tora (f) in a gloss (Karpov 2005a: 42, 47), implying a Gmc.
*auga-dur-an/ō(n)- (NCG 44, 238; HGE 28; NWG 238); the -n- stem reflects a
singulative (§8.23) ‘door leaf ’ (Pronk 2015: 331)6
*ausi-hriggja- ‘earring’ (cf. Goth. auso, stem auson- ‘ear’; for *hrigg- cf. Crim. rinck,
ringo), borrowed into Slavic as OSlav. userę(d)zŭ ‘id.’; cf. OHG ôrring, OS ôrhring*
(nom pl oringa Glossary from the Abbey of St. Peter 75.25), Norw. ørenring, OE
ēarhring earring (GED 51; cf. NCG 42); Gmc. *hringa- (ON hringr, OE hring ring,
etc.) is from a root found only in Germanic and Slavic (EDPG 247)
awi-liuþ (n -a-) [(divine)blessings-hymn] ‘(prayer of) thanks(giving)’ (awiliuþ 1Cor
15:57A, 2Cor 2:14, 8:16A ~ awiliud 1Cor 15:57B, 2Cor 2:14, 8:16, 9:15B, acc 2Cor
4:15B, plus oblique case forms), a different translation of Gk. kháris ‘grace, beauty;
gratefulness, thanks’, eukharistíā ‘thanks’ (cf. NWG 84; Ganina 2001: 122ff.; Karpov
2005a: 47); compounded with a VL variant of liuþ* (n -a-) ‘song (of praise)’, only
dat sg liuþa Bl 2r.16 (Falluomini 2014: 296; Schuhmann 2016: 69f.)
baurgs-waddjus (f -u-) ‘city wall’ (Neh 6:15, 7:1, gen -waddjaus Neh 5:16, dat -waddjau
2Cor 11:33B) translates Gk. teĩkhos ‘wall’ (Karpov 2005a: 48); like ON borgarveggr
‘wall of a town’ (NCG 95) with gen borgar, baurgswaddjus likely originated as a
phrase with gen baurgs (Pollak 1912: 291, NWG 199, both w. lit)
broþra-lubo* (f -n-) [brother-love] ‘brotherly love’ (dat sg broþralubon Rom 12:10A ~
broþrulubon 1Thess 4:9B) is a loan translation of Gk. philadelphíā ‘id.’ with metathesis
of the constituents to accommodate Germanic compound morphology (NWG 239;
Karpov 2005a: 47; see also NCG 278)
daura-wards (m -a-) [door-guard] (Jn 10:3+) ‘gatekeeper’ (Gk. thur-ōrós ‘id.’ Karpov
2005a: 46), e.g. sunjus daurawarde ‘sons of the porters’ (Neh 7:45); cf. isolated
daurawarda* (dat sg daurawardai Jn 18:16) ‘female gatekeeper’ beside productive
derived fem daurawardo Jn 18:17 ‘id.’ (Rabofski 1990: 22–7), not a substantivized adj
(pace NWG 110, 227). Compare -u- stem *duru-: OE dure-weard ‘gatekeeper’, ON
duravorðr, OHG turi-wart ‘id.’ (Karpov 2005b: 201; NCG 67; see -wards in App.)
faihu-gairnei* (f -n-) [wealth-desire] ‘greed for money/gain’ (gen sg faihugairneins
Tit 1:11A); cf. Gk. aiskhroũ kérdous ‘of shameful/dishonest gain’ (cf. NWG 288;
Karpov 2005a: 48 miscites the Greek as **khérdos); Eng. ‘filthy lucre’ is from Vulg.
turpis lucrī. See faihugairns* (§7.7) (GPA 242); cf. faihu-geiro (1Tim 6:10A/B) = Gk.
philarguríā ‘love of money’, acc -geiron (Col 3:5A/B) = Gk. pleonexíā [having more]
‘greed’ (Pimenova 2003: 426f.; NWG 231), often read as -geigo(n) (e.g. Snædal)
faihu-þraihn(s)* (m or n -a-) ‘accumulation of wealth/riches’ (dat sg faihuþraihna Lk
16:9, 11, 13, and at Mt 6:24 faihuþra(ihna) is written in the margin of cod. Argenteus
glossing the Aramaic word mammonim (mammōnae in many Latin versions: Marold
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).
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)
< 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).
7.5 Galiuga- compounds

Gothic compounds with galiuga- ‘false’ are endocentric, but what is galiuga-? The
examples follow, all scriptorium fabrications (Kauffmann 1920: 178; cf. Kind 1901: 9f.;
Grewolds 1934: 152).
7.6 A + N, Num + N, and P + N endocentrics 291
galiuga-apaustauleis (nom pl 2Cor 11:13B) ‘false apostles’ (Gk. pseud-apóstoloi ‘id.’);

the rule of apocope before a vowel-initial constituent is violated in this learned word
(Seebold 1968c: 75)
galiuga-broþar* (pl dat -broþrum 2Cor 11:26B, gen -broþre Gal 2:4A/B) ‘false brother’
(Gk. pseud-ádelphos ‘id.’)
galiuga-guþ* (6x, 2 dupl) ‘false god’ mostly translates Gk. eídōlon ‘idol’ and its deriva-
tives (Weinhold 1870: 6); eídōlon is also rendered by galiug alone: miþ galiugam
(2Cor 6:16A/B) ‘with idols’; cf. in galiuge stada (1Cor 8:10A) ‘in a place (i.e. temple)
of idols’ = Gk. en eidōleíōi ‘in an eidoleion’ (Laird 1940: 72)
galiuga-praufetus* (pl nom -praufeteis Mk 13:22, dat -praufetum Lk 6:26) ‘false
prophet’ (Gk. pseudo-prophetēs ‘id.’)
galiuga-weitwods (Mk 10:19, Lk 18:20, nom pl 1Cor 15:15A) ‘false witness’ (Gk. pseudo-
marturéō ‘be a false witness’ and pseudo-mártures ‘false witnesses’)
galiuga-xristjus (nom pl Mk 13:22) ‘false Christs’ (Gk. pseudó-khristoi ‘id.’): since
the Goths knew nothing about Christ, they would have had no need for a false
Christ, so this compound is necessarily an invention modeled on the Greek
(Kind 1901: 9)
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).
7.6 A + N, Num + N, and P + N endocentrics

Early Germanic had some ten A+N endocentric compounds, and Northwest Germanic
about thirty-four (NCG 162). Because they are fewer in number than N+N endocentrics,
the types with a Numeral or P-word (preposition, particle) satellite can be included
here. Generally speaking, Gothic renderings of Greek P-compounds are among the
292 Compounding
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)
7.8 A + A and P + A endocentrics

While endocentric compounds consisting of P (preposition/particle) plus A and A
plus A are different, they are combined here because both types are numerically few.
A+A was represented by some fifteen types in early Germanic and another twenty-six
in West Germanic (NCG 162). Late Old English also attests the type hrīmig-heard
‘frozen hard’ (NCG 227). Examples of both types follow.
*alla-wers ‘all-agreeable’ underlies allawerei* ‘total agreement, sincerity, generosity’:

dat sg allawerein Rom 12:8A (Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 21f.); cf. ON olværr ‘affectionate,
kind, friendly, hospitable’, OHG alawāri ‘id.’, MLG alwār ‘foolish’, OE adv ealwerlīce
‘liberally, freely’ (NCG 62) < Gmc. *al(l)a-wērjaz (HGE 16); prob orig. built on a
root noun *wēr- ‘trust, loyalty, agreement’ (NWG 303, w. lit)
7.9 V + N endocentrics 297
filu-faihs* (adj -a-) [much-colored] ‘manifold, multifaceted, multidimensional’ (nom

sg f wk filufaiho Eph 3:10A) is a calque on Gk. polu-poíkilos [much-variegated] ‘id.’
(Kind 1901: 11; LCG 225), even though faih- and poik- are cognate (LHE2 197). The
Latin translation is multi-formis ‘of many forms’, and filufaiho is replaced in MS B
with managfalþo ‘manifold’ (Snædal, ad loc); see manag-falþs* (§7.16)
fulla-weis* (adj -a-) [full-wise] ‘fully cognizant’: nom pl m ei fraþjam fullaweisai sijaiþ
(1Cor 14:20A) ‘that in (your) understanding you may be fully cognizant’ translates
Gk. taĩs dè phresìn téleioi gínesthe ‘but be téleioi [‘complete(d), perfect(ed); fulfilling’]
in (your) minds’ (cf. Vulg. perfectī estōte ‘be perfect(ed)’). For other Gothic render-
ings of téleios see alla-waurstwa* ‘all-fulfiller’, fulla-tojis ‘fully developed’, fulla-wita*
‘one with full knowledge’. The last suggests that fullaweis* is to be taken endocentri-
cally as ‘fully cognizant’ (pace Elkin 1954: 404, who adheres to the traditional ‘fully
developed, mature’)
ufar-fulls* [over-full] ‘packed, compacted’ (nom sg f ufarfulla Lk 6:38) translates Gk.
pepiesménon ‘id.’, PPP of piézō ‘(com)press’; it is the source of the noun ufar-fullei*
(dat sg ufarfullein Lk 6:45) ‘overflow, abundance’ (GPA 220f.), unless that is dever-
bal (NWG 288). Although this type became productive later in Germanic, as in OE
ofer-mōd, OHG ubar-muoti ‘overconfident, arrogant’ (KM 38), ufarfulls* is isolated
in Gothic as an adjective with ufar- (but cf. undarleija*). It is also possible that
ufarfulls* is a generalization from forms like nom sg m ufarfulliþs im fahedais 2Cor
7:4A/B ‘I am filled up with joy’ to ufar-fulljan* (2x) ‘overfill’.
undar-leija* (m -n-) ‘the lowest of the low’ (dat sg -leijin Eph 3:8B), rendering Gk.
elakhistóteros ‘less than the least’, a comparative of the superlative elákhistos ‘least’,
technically does not belong here because it is substantivized, but it is by origin an
adjective *undar-leis with undar ‘under’ as an intensifying particle to the mutually
reinforcing Gmc. *leija- ‘low, base, humble, small’ (EbgW 15, GED 376, NWG 266
with hesitation; differently Alcamesi 2009: 18f.)
us-weihs* (adj -a-) [out.of-holy] ‘unholy, irreverent, profane’ (dat pl m usweihaim
1Tim 1:9A/B, acc pl n wk usweihona 1Tim 4:7A/B, 2Tim 2:16B) translates but is
not calqued on Gk. bébēlos [treadable] ‘profane, unhallowed’; a possible source,
although it does not occur in these passages and seems semantically stronger, is
Lat. ex-secrātus ‘accursed, detestable’ (Velten 1930: 349f.; LCG 228)
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
þut-haurn* (n -a-) [blare-horn] ‘trumpet’ (dat sg þuthaurna 1Cor 15:52A/B, 1Thess

4:16B) renders Gk. sálpigx, which underlies denominal salpízō ‘(blow the) trumpet’
(EDG 1304), not the other way around (pace Karpov 2005a: 48); þut- (m -i-) occurs
only in this compound (but cf. ON þytr ‘noise, whistling sound’) and is a deverbal
action nominal to Gmc. *þeutan-, as in ON þjóta ‘howl, whistle, roar’ (GED 369,
NWG 178, EDPG 540, 555); an old consonant stem cannot be excluded because the
-i- stem is inferred solely from ON þytr, but all ‘noise’ words in Old Norse exhibit
-i- umlaut (Miller 2017)
winþi-skauro* (f -n-) [winnow-fork/shovel] ‘winnowing fan, threshing fork’ (acc sg
winþiskauron Lk 3:17) translates Gk. ptúon ‘id.’ (Karpov 2005a: 48), but the word
occurs in a passage modeled on the Vetus Latina (§9.12, end); the first part of
the compound is related to dis-winþeiþ (Lk 20:18) ‘crushes’ (Rolffs 1908: 11); cf. OE
windwian ‘winnow’, Lat. ventilāre ‘id.’ (Wilmanns 1896: 537; KM 28; cf. GED 92); for
the compound, cf. OE winds(c)obl ‘winnowing shovel’, OHG wintscufola ‘id.’, etc.
Winþi- is at least deverbal even if a verb as first constituent would be isolated in
Gothic (NWG 235f.)
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).
7.10 Exocentric and bahuvrihi compounds

Exocentric compounds have no (surface) element to determine category. That sit-in is
a noun is not predictable from the immediate overt structure of [sit]V + [in]P. In Miller
(2014b) it is argued (following many others) that there is a null head to effect conver-
sion, and that consequently no compounds are in fact exocentric. To avoid confusion
here, the traditional label will continue to be used.
Sometimes considered a subclass of exocentric compounds is the bahuvrihi (Sanskrit
bahu- ‘much’ + vrīhi- ‘rice’), which is illustrated by the name itself. Like English
redhead, it is not an ‘abundance of rice’ but ‘having an abundance of rice’. Similarly,
a redhead is not a ‘red head’ but rather ‘(someone) who has a red head’ (i.e. red hair).
With the structure of redhead in (1a), compare the abbreviated parallel of redheaded
in (1b), where A = adjective, N = noun.
7.10 Exocentric and bahuvrihi compounds 299
(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
nom pl m hauhhairtai 2Tim 3:2A ~ hauhairtai 3:2B, dat pl m hauhairtaim Bl 2r.8)

(Kind 1901: 31f.; LCG 229; Snædal 2015a: 79) (cf. acc sg hauhairtein Bl 2r.15, gen sg
hauhairteins Bl 2r.13 ‘deceit’). A frequent type, which Carr relegates to a remote section
(p. 226f.), is OE blōdigtōð bloodytoothed (§8.31).
A related construct type involves a participle plus noun, e.g. ON bundin-fóti ‘hav-
ing bound feet’ (Þorkell in Landnáma saga), OE wunden-feax ‘with braided mane’
(Beowulf 1400) (Patrick Stiles, p.c.), similar to the modern brokenheart(ed) type (NCG
201ff.).
7.11 Nominal exocentric compounds
ai a-tundi* (f -jō-) [horse-tooth] ‘bramble bush’ (dat sg ai a-tundjai Mk 12:26, Lk

6:44, 20:37) for Gk. bátos ‘id.’ (NWG 157, Karpov 2005a: 49); with ai a- < PIE
*ékwos ‘horse’ (LHE2 116, 118); not endocentric because the referent is not a tooth
(tunþus), assuming that is the etymology of the opaque tund- (other suggestions in
Majut 1972: ch. 2; cf. Del Pezzo 1985: 123); ‘horse-tooth’ should not be a metaphor
for the plant but only for one of its thorns (pace Seebold 1968c: 77f.)
aina-baur* (m -i-) [one-birth] ‘only-begotten (one)’ (dat sg -baura Sk 5.4.1) is a
calque on Gk. mono-genes ‘only-begotten’ (NWG 174), but in all Biblical passages
mono-genes is translated by ainaha (Velten 1930: 339; see §8.39)
ala-brun-sts* (f -i-) [all-burn-act] ‘burnt offering’ (dat pl alabrunstim Mk 12:33) is a
Christian term modeled on Gk. holo–kaú-t-ōma [whole–burn-ed-entity] ‘whole
burnt offering’ (Velten 1930: 339; NWG 498f.)
ala-moþ-s* (m -a-) [all-spirit, community-mind] (Scardigli 1973: 282f.; GED 24f., 29,
259): dat sg alamoda in the four Naples deeds, used as a name of the representative
and then as a word for the representative (§§10.6f.)
ana-minds* (f -i-) [on-mind] ‘suspicion’ (nom pl -mindeis 1Tim 6:4A/B); the meta-
phor is slightly different from that of Gk. hupó-noia [under-mind, hidden thought]
‘supposition, conjecture, suspicion’, but the formation is similar and has a Germanic
pedigree (on which, see NWG 502f.)
anda-nahti (n -ja-) [toward-night] ‘evening’ (Mk 11:19; dat sg -nahtja 5x): Gk. opsé
(Mk 11:19) ‘late (in the day)’, opsíā (Mt 8:16, Mk 1:32, 4:35, 11:11, 15:42) ‘evening’
(Lücke 1876: 33f.; Wilmanns 1896: 239; Sturtevant 1933c: 347; NWG 140)
and-augi (n -ja-) [against/along the eye] ‘face; (in) presence, face-to-face’ (acc sg
2Cor 10:1B, 1Thess 2:17B) translates Gk. prósōpon ‘face’ (prós ‘to/against’ + ops ‘eye’)
(Velten 1930: 342); for the formation, cf. ON and-dyri [against/opposite the door]
‘porch’ and see faura-dauri* below (NWG 136)
anda-waurdi (n -ja-) [counter-word] ‘answer, reply’ (acc sg Jn 19:9, -waurde(?) [see
Sturtevant 1933c: 342ff.] Lk 20:26, dat pl -waurdjam Lk 2:47) for Gk. apókrisis
‘answer’ (Aston 1958: 37f.); cf. OE andwyrde ‘answer’, OS anduuordi (Heliand
1759M, anduurdi ibid. Heliand 1759C+) ‘id.’, OHG antwurti ‘id.; oracle response’
(NWG 140f.)
7.11 Nominal exocentric compounds 301
balwa-we[i]sei* (f -n-) [evil-wiseness] ‘malice, maliciousness’ (gen sg balwaweseins

1Cor 5:8A), for Gk. kakíā ‘id.’; cf. OS balu-wīso (m -n-) ‘tempter, corruptor, devil’
(nom sg baluuuiso [Heliand 1096C], balouuiso [Heliand 1096M]; the often-cited
balawīso, e.g. GED 60, HGE 34, does not exist), and the adjective ON bolvíss
[bale-wise] ‘detestable, mischievous’ is from Gmc. *balwa-wīsaz (HGE 34; cf. EbgW
44, 69; NWG 164, 298; EDPG 50)
drauhti-witoþ (n -a-) [military-instruction] ‘warfare, battle’ (acc sg 1Tim 1:18A/B)
renders Gk. strateíā ‘military campaign, warfare’ (NWG 459f.; Karpov 2005a: 47);
different from drauhtinassus* ‘military campaign’ (§8.4; Ambrosini 1958: 228f.;
Rousseau 2012: 287)
faura-dauri* (n -ja-) [before the door] ‘street’ (acc pl -daurja Lk 10:10) glosses Gk.
plateĩa ‘street’ (Wilmanns 1896: 239, 544; Stolzenburg 1905: 32; NWG 137)
faura-maþleis (m -ja-) [fore-speaker] renders several Greek words, e.g. árkhōn ‘ruler’,
hēgemon ‘leader, commander’, ethnárkhēs ‘ethnarch’; the literal meaning is ‘the one
who speaks solemnly (maþljan*) before (faura) the assembly’ [maþl* (n -a-) ‘forum’]
(Wilmanns 1896: 233; Kind 1901: 14); ‘he who speaks beforehand, first’ (NWG 118)
does not capture the composition; not a calque, possibly the native Gothic word for
the leader of assemblies (Kind 1901: 14; Rousseau 2012: 295)
frei-hals (2Cor 3:17B) ~ freij-hals (2Cor 3:17A) (m -a-) [free-neck] ‘freedom’ (also dat
freihalsa Gal 5:1, 13B; acc frei(j)hals) renders Gk. eleutheríā ‘freedom’ (NWG 64)
fruma-baur (m -i-) [first-birth] ‘first-born (one)’ (Col 1:15, 18A/B, acc sg Lk 2:7) is
modeled on Gk. prōtó-tokos ‘first-born’; for the meaning of the Gothic form, cf. Germ.
Erstgeburt [first-birth] ‘first-born (child)’ (NWG 174)
ga-hlaiba* (m -n-) [with-bread, having bread together; see hlaifs in App.] ‘companion,
colleague, cohort’ (acc sg gahlaiban Phil 2:25B = Gk. sustratiotēs ‘fellow soldier’;
dat pl gahlaibam Jn 11:16 = Gk. summathētes ‘fellow disciple’, gahlaibaim Deeds 1,
2, 4, gahlaibim Deed 3 (§10.7); cf. Fr. compagnon ‘companion’ < VL *com-pāni-ōn-
(com- ‘with’ + pānis ‘bread’, if not a folk etymology). Even if the relationship to the
Vulgar Latin form were unequivocal, the direction of influence is disputed (GED
139; Schmeja 1998; NWG 241). Since Lat. compāniō first occurs in the Lex Salica, the
Salian Frankish civil law code [ca. 500], a Germanic original is plausible (DELL 849;
Velten 1930: 345; Scardigli 1964: 188f.; 1973: 283f.). Bishop Wulfila may have coined
the term with religious significance (Della Volpe 2004)9
hleþra-stakeins (f -n-) [for *hleiþra-stakeins: temporary shelter – making fast
(Ebbinghaus 1976b: 356)] ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ (Jn 7:2) is a structural calque on
Gk. skēno-pēgíā ‘id.’ (cf. Velten 1930: 340; NWG 344; Karpov 2005a: 46)
mana-seþs (Jn 16:20+) ~ manaseds (Jn 12:19+) ~ manaseiþs (Jn 14:17+) (f -i-) [man-
seed] ‘mankind, the world’ for Gk. kósmos ‘id.’ (Groeper 1915: 43ff.; NCG 381;
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.)
7.12 Adjectival exocentrics (bahuvrihis)
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)
Goth. bloþa-rinn-and-ei (Mt 9:20 and bloþarinnandin Ver 7:13) [blood-run/flow-PrP-f]

‘(a woman) with a hemorrhage disorder’ is a unique morpheme-by-morpheme calque
on Gk. haimo-rro-oũ-sa [blood-flow-PrP-f] ‘id.’ (Toporova 1989).
7.13 Synthetic compounds

Synthetic or verbal compounds have a deverbal constituent with a satellite that
bears a thematic (or theta) role, as in peace-making, truckdriver, semantic role (e.g.
locational rope-walking, instrumental knife-fighting), or adverbial (quick-stepping).
Root or primary compounds are merged nominals (tax-form, arms factory). Similar-
appearing constructs can be either synthetic [[cement-mix]er] or root [[hand][mix-er]]
(a mixer held in the hand). In the latter, hand is a semantic locational, not an argu-
ment of mix, which has no argument structure: *hand-mixer of eggs. Contrast the
synthetic compound hand-weaver, in which hand is a free instrumental (‘by hand’)
and weave has an argument structure that can be satisfied outside the compound:
hand-weaver of rugs (rugs satisfies the theme argument).
As noted in §7.10, exocentric compounds were highly restricted in early Germanic.
One nonexisting variety is the V+N synthetic compound (the pickpocket type). There
is but one potential example in Gothic:
(2) grinda-fraþjis* (adj -ja-) [lit. grind-mind?] ‘crushed in spirit; fainthearted, dis-
couraged, demoralized’ (acc pl m wk -fraþjans 1Thess 5:14B): translates but is
not a clear calque on Gk. oligó-psūkhos [small-spirit] ‘fainthearted’ or Lat. pusill-
animis (first in Vet. Lat.) ‘paltry-hearted; discouraged’ (LSDE 68); if indeed a
V+N compound, it is entirely isolated in Gothic (Seebold 1968c: 76f.), but cf.
OE grinde-tōþ [grind-tooth] ‘molar’ (LCG 230)
V+N synthetic compounds begin in Late Old High German and Late Old English,
but there is no productivity until Middle High German or Middle English (Wilmanns
1896: 536ff.; NCG 170ff.; KM 30f.). The type was frequent in Vulgar and Medieval
Latin (Bork 1990; Fradin 2009) and most likely diffused into Late Continental
Germanic from there. In English, of course, the influence of French facilitated the
development of this compound type, which remains of limited productivity (Miller
2014b: 53ff.).
Gothic has idiosyncratic calques like þiuþ-spillon* [good-tell] ‘proclaim good
(news)’ (3sg pret þiuþspilloda managein Lk 3:18 ‘proclaimed good news to the multi-
tude’) and waila-spillon* [well-tell] ‘announce, proclaim’ (PrP nom sg m -spillonds
306 Compounding
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).
7.14 Synthetic compounds and thematic roles
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]
Several compounds translate Gk. téleios ‘complete(d), perfect(ed); fulfilling, fulfiller’,

e.g. alla-waurstwa* ‘all-fulfiller’, fulla-wita ‘one with full knowledge’, fulla-weis* ‘fully
cognizant’, and now fulla-tojis ‘fully developed’ (cf. taujan ‘make, do, bring about’). All
of these are rendered in Latin by perfectus ‘perfect(ed)’. It appears that the Gothic
translator(s) strove to be explicit about the contextual meaning of téleios (cf. Ambrosini
1967: 93–6; pace Weinhold 1870: 24; Dolcetti Corazza 1997: 89f.), since several simplex
words could also render it, e.g. fulls ‘full’, as in du waira fullamma (Eph 4:13A/B) = Gk.
eis ándra téleion ‘to a perfect man’, i.e. ‘a mature adult’ (Seebold 1968c: 76), or us-tauhan
(Rom 12:2C) [drawn out] ‘perfect(ed)’ = Gk. téleion (Velten 1930: 499f.).
Another semantically passive -ja- formation is silba-wiljis* (m) [self-will-ed]
‘motivated (person)’, i.e. ‘volunteer’ (§7.6). In this case, the satellite silba- bears an
agentive thematic role ‘willed by (one)self ’.
Suffixes can encode various thematic roles. For instance, Eng. -er can be agent
(gambler), instrument (stapler), location (planter [container]), theme/patient (roaster
[chicken]), experiencer (hearer), beneficiary (inheritor), etc. (Miller 1993: 68, 2014b:
128f., w. lit).11
There is nothing inherently passive in the Gothic -ja- suffix. For instance, -tojis is
active ‘doing, making’ in (4), and its satellite has a theme role:
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
(4) ubil-tojis (adj/m -ja-) [evil-doing] ‘evildoer, malefactor, criminal’ (nom sg m Jn

18:30, 2Tim 2:9B), a clear calque on Gk. kako-poiós ‘evil-doing’ at Jn 18:30 (Kind
1901: 21; Grewolds 1934: 146; Pausch 1954: 96), with v.ll. (not in Byz.) kakòn
poiõn ‘doing evil’, kakopoiõn ‘id.’ (compounded), etc. The Latin versions also
have several variants: Vulg. malefactor ‘evildoer’, Vet. Lat. malefaciēns ‘evildoing’
etc. (VL 1963: 195). Ubiltojis (2Tim 2:9B) translates kakoũrgos ‘wreaking ill;
malefactor’ (cf. Lat. male operāns ‘working evil’).
It is possible that the native Gothic term was wai-dedja (m -n-) [woe-doer] ‘evil-doer’
(9x) because it is formally independent of Gk. lēistes ‘robber, plunderer’ (Kind 1901:
22). The formation is denominal to -deþs (e.g. ga-deþs* §8.9); cf. OE yfel-dæda, MHG
übeltæte ‘evil-doer’ (NWG 256); see missa-deþs* (§7.6).
Also active with a satellite bearing a theme role (cf. Seebold 1968c: 79) is the -ja-
stem gud-blostreis (m) ‘God-worshipper’ (§§7.3, 7.4).
In a slightly different vein, the -ja- stem silba-siuneis* (m) ‘eyewitness’ is literally
‘seeing for oneself ’, in which silba- receives an experiencer role.
One can conclude that -ja- stems remained productive in Gothic for deriving new
compounds (Wilmanns 1896: 233f.; Kluge 1911: 97; Seebold 1968c: 79; LCG 219). This
is evident from (i) the number of new formations, (ii) the derivation from other stem
types, as faura-maþleis (m -ja-) ‘leader, director’ to maþl* (n -a-) ‘forum’, and (iii) the
variety of different semantic functions and thematic roles borne by the satellites.
Unproductive morphemes do not share this versatility (Miller 2010, 2014b: passim).
7.15 Synthetic compounds with agentive *-an- and *-jan-
Agentives in *-(j)an- originated from denominals meaning ‘one connected with’

(§§ 8.23, 8.25), e.g. Goth. waurstwa (m -n-) ‘one connected with work (waurstw)’. There
is no corresponding Gothic verb. The hapax waurstwa (1Tim 5:18A) glosses Gk.
ergátēs ‘worker’ (NWG 224). From that is derived ga-waurstwa ‘fellow worker’ (§7.7).
In the next stage the original denominal actor nominal can assign a theme role to a
satellite and becomes a quasi-deverbal agentive, like alla-waurstwa* below.12
More productive with a thematic object is *-jan-. For an agentive simplex, cf.
waurstwja (16x, 1 dupl) ‘worker’ (NWG 261). This is a nominalization (cf. Karpov
2005a: 85), as shown by the objective genitive airþos waurstwja (2Tim 2:6B) ‘worker
of the earth’ (§4.23).
-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
all-fulfillers and full-knowledge possessors’ translates Gk. hína stathẽte téleioi

kaì peplērophorēménoi ‘that you may stand perfectly fulfilling and bearing full
(knowledge)’, with téleios ‘complete(d), perfect(ed); fulfilling, fulfiller’ (cf. Lat. ut
stētis perfectī et plēnī ‘that you may stand perfect(ed) and full’)
faihu-skul-a* (m -n-) ‘money-ower, debtor’ (only gen pl faihuskulane Lk 16:5) is a
clarification of Gk. khre-ōpheilétēs ‘debtor’ from khréos ‘obligation, debt, fee’ +
opheilétēs ‘ower, debtor’ (Wolfe 2018b), not a calque (pace Velten 1930: 343; cf. EDG
1132, 1648). The Greek word is misanalyzed as **khreō-pheilétē in Karpov (2005a:
46). The Byzantine tradition prefers the form with omega rather than the main v.l.
khreopheilétēs (e.g. Ambrosini 1958: 233; NWG 213). Khreōpheilétai at Lk 7:41 is
rendered dulgis skulans ‘owers of debt’ (Winkler 1896: 320); the legal status may
derive from faihu as ‘cattle’ (App.; Pausch 1954: 56f.)
faura-gagg-a* (m -n-) [fore-go-er] ‘steward, administrator’ (dat pl -gaggam Gal 4:2A)
translates Gk. oikonómos ‘(house)manager, administrator’; fauragagga* is literally
‘one who goes ahead’ with agentive -an- (Grewolds 1934: 146; NWG 215); cf. faura-
gaggja (7x) ‘steward, manager, treasurer’ translating oikonómos and at Lk 8:3 epítro-
pos ‘steward’ (Wilmanns 1896: 570; NWG 258; Wolfe 2018b)
ufar-swar-a* (m -n-) ‘perjurer’ (dat pl ufarswaram 1Tim 1:10B) may be a structural
calque on Gk. epíorkos ‘perjured’ or more likely a deverbal agentive to ufar-swaran*
(modeled on Gk. epi-orkeĩn) ‘to swear falsely’ (§7.19; Grewolds 1934: 146; VEW
480ff., NWG 216). This type is well represented later in Germanic, e.g. ON yfir-boði
‘superior’ and, with the later actor suffix -ari- (§8.30), yfir-boðari ‘id.’; cf. OHG uber-
teilare ‘judge’ (cf. Werth 1973: 264)
-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
13 Casaretto sometimes invokes backformation for noncumulative or subtractive morphology, but

(i) backformation should be reserved for situations in which a form is created to underlie another form
310 Compounding
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.)
These formatives remained productive in forming new Gothic compounds (cf.

Johansson 1904: 467; LCG 219), as their transparency shows (Karpov 2005a: 38ff.).
For instance, arbi ‘inheritance’ occurs seven words from arbinumja ‘heir’ at Mk 12:7
and Lk 20:14. With twai dulgis skulans wesun dulgahaitjin sumamma (Lk 7:41) ‘a
certain creditor had two debtors’ cf. faihuskula* and dulgahaitja*. Note also ei
driugais . . . þata godo drauhtiwitoþ (1Tim 1:18A/B) ‘so that . . . you may wage the good
warfare’. And so on (Kauffmann 1920: 177; Karpov 2005a: 85; 2005b: 207, 209; Rousseau
2016: 615).
The following formation is unclear but possibly belongs here:
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
7.16 Compounds with participle as deverbal constituent
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)
7.17 Dvandva and identificational compounds

Dvandvas (also called concatenative, copulative, coordinat(iv)e, binomial, and co-
compounds) contain (originally) two but for the modern languages often more
than two conjoined heads. Consider (5), where cnj is an abstract conjunction, and no
individual constituent heads the construct (Miller 2014b: 55–9, w. lit).
312 Compounding
(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’.
7.18 Possible archaic dvandvas
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:
wilja-halþei (f -n-) [will-inclination] ‘favoritism, partiality’: nom sg wiljahalþei (Eph

6:9A/B) and wiljahalþein (Col 3:25B) render Gk. prosōpo-lēmpsíā ‘respect of per-
sons, partiality’ (cf. Lat. persōnārum acceptiō ‘id.’), but dat sg wiljahalþein (1Tim
5:21A/B) translates Gk. katà prósklisin ‘by/according to partiality’ (NWG 289)14
If the meaning of the compound involves the intersection of ‘will’ and ‘inclination’,
then it belongs here.
7.19 Identificational/appositional compounds
In identificational or appositional compounds the constituents are referentially iden-

tical. The test for an appositional compound involves the interpretation of the XY
constituents as ‘an X which is a Y and a Y which is an X’. An actor-director is an actor
who is a director and a director who is an actor; cf. actor-playwright, actor-producer.
Gothic attests at least the following two identificational compounds:15
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
mari-saiws* (m -i-?) [sea/lake-lake/marshland] (acc sg -saiw Lk 8:22, 23, 33) trans-

lates Gk. límnē ‘pool, marshy lake’; cf. Goth. marei ‘sea’ (see mariin App.) and
saiws* ‘lake, marshland’ (q.v. in App.); since the two constituents are not necessarily
coterminous, the compound is identificational but usually classed as tautological
(Wilmanns 1896: 531; Johansson 1904: 457; NCG 332, NWG 181f., 190)
þiu-magus (m -u-) [servant-boy] (Mt 8:6+ [6x]); cf. þius* ‘household slave’, magus ‘boy,
son’; the compound translates Gk. paĩs ‘child; boy; slave’ and is identificational but
not tautological because magus ‘boy’ alone does not mean ‘servant’ (Seebold 1968c:
81; see also NWG 160, 198; Karpov 2005a: 49; Rousseau 2012: 286)
Old English has āgend-frēa [owner-lord], frēa-dryhten [lord-master/ruler], werewulf

(1x) [man-wolf] wer(e)wolf = OHG Weriwolf (a name), etc. (NCG 104f., 327–32,
KM 24f.).
7.20 Grammaticalization of compounding

heads as suffixes
Germanic had several righthand endocentric or bahuvrihi constituents that became
grammaticalized as suffixes. Grammaticalization is the process by which lexical
material in a given construction develops grammatical function. One type involves
the change of a lexical word to a grammatical one, e.g. have ‘possess’ (I have a book) >
perfect have (I have seen). Another type is the generation of a suffix. For instance,
Old Serbian hoću (pisati) ‘I want (to write)’ developed into the Serbian future tense
marker: pisa(ti-h)ću ‘I will write’ (details in Miller 2010: ii. ch. 3). This is the kind
at issue here except that original compounding constituents are grammaticalized
as suffixes.
In the case of original endocentric nouns the construct typically keeps the gender
of the second element. It is not until the gender shifts to that of the first constituent or
the noun class to which it belongs that the second is most likely a suffix. The absence
of information about secondary stress and other properties makes it difficult to deter-
mine whether the formation is still a compound or a derived form. With semantic
evolution of the righthand constituent beyond the original compositional meaning(s),
however, there is some indication that the change from a compounding word to a
suffix is at least under way, if not completed. Finally, application to other such con-
stituents, e.g. OE ealdor-dōm-scipe (Old English Chronicle 983) ‘office of the alderman,
aldermanship’, suggests affixal status because in Old English -scip- was not used to
derive an abstract noun from a full compound (NCG 236, KM 220).
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.
7.21 -laus ‘free from, deprived of ’
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.
akrana-laus (nom sg n Mk 4:19) [fruit-less] ‘sterile, deprived of fruit’ (Benveniste

1961: 35) is a calque on Gk. á-karpos [without-fruit] ‘barren, fruitless, unprofitable’;
cf. akran (n -a-) ‘fruit’ (NCG 277, NWG 320, LCG 227)
andi/a-laus* ‘endless’ (gen pl n anda-lausaize 1Tim 1:4A ~ andi- 1:4/B), probably a
loan translation of Gk. a-pérantos ‘boundless, endless’ (Velten 1930: 339; LCG 227;
cf. Goth. andeis ‘end’) = ON endi/alauss ‘endless, eternal’, OS endilōs (e.g. acc sg n
Heliand 4448CM), OHG [c11] endelōs, OE endelēas ‘infinite, eternal, endless’,
supposedly parallel formations (NCG 88) but also possible is Gmc. *andi-lausaz
(HGE 18), which gave OHG enti-; typical of oxytones that developed mobile accen-
tuation, Germanic had a VL variant *anþija- (Kiparsky 2010)
guda-laus* ‘godless’ (nom pl m gudalausai Eph 2:12A); cf. ON guðlauss ‘godless’, prob-
ably parallel calques on Gk. á-theos (Weinhold 1870: 6; NCG 95, HGE 145) but with
the more specific meaning ‘deprived of God’ (Benveniste 1961: 33, 35)
witoda-laus [law-less] ‘without law, outside the law’ (nom sg m -laus, acc pl m -lausans,
dat pl m wk -lausam, all 1Cor 9:21A, plus dat pl m -lausaim 1Tim 1:9A): a loan
translation of Gk. á-nomos ‘without law, lawless’ (GGS 176) but with many parallels
in syntax (Benveniste 1961: 34f.)
16 Many un- formations are also privative, e.g. un-swers ‘dishonored’, un-bimait* ‘uncircumcision’
(cf. Grewolds 1934: 158ff.).
316 Compounding
7.22 -leiks ‘(a)like, -ly’
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):
ga-leik-a* (m -n-) [together-body-entity] ‘joint body’ (acc pl galeikans Eph 3:6B) is a

clear calque on Gk. sús-sōma ‘united in one body’ or Lat. con-corporālēs ‘id.’ (Velten
1930: 339f.; NWG 242; see ga-leiks below)
man-leik-a (m -n-) [man-body-entity] or [man-structure/formation-entity] (cf.
Ambrosini 1958: 234) ‘picture, likeness, image (of a human being)’ (Mk 12:16, acc
sg man-leikan Lk 20:24, 1Cor 15:49A, mann-leikan 1Cor 15:49B) translates Gk.
eikon ‘likeness, image, portrait’ (NCG 381, NWG 239, Karpov 2005a: 49); cf. ON
(Edda) mannlíkan (f) ‘image of a man, idol, effigy’ (also manns-líki (n) ‘likeness
of a man, human shape’), OHG manalīhha ‘image of a man, statue’ (with -a-
stem influence NCG 306f.), OE manlīca ‘human form, image of a man, statue’
(NCG 43, 238) < Gmc. *mann-līk-an/ō(n)- (HGE 260, but see H. Beck 1975: 277)
with generalized composition -a- in some West Germanic areas (NCG 254, 278).
Note also the adjective OHG manlīh ‘male, manly’, ON mannligr ‘manly, becom-
ing a man; human’, OE adv manlīce (Beowulf 1046) ‘manly, nobly’ (Schmid 1998:
307f.)
7.22 -leiks '(a)like, -ly' 317
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).
agis-leiks* [fear-like] ‘terrible, frightening’ (dat sg m: us agis|leikamma auhna funins

brinnandin (Bl 1v.13f. Schuhmann 2016: 65f.; Falluomini 2017: 292) ‘from the terrible
burning oven of fire’) = OE egeslīc ‘terrible, frightening, horrifying’, OS egislīc ‘id.’,
OHG egislīh (ege/islich etc.) ‘frightening, terrible, horrible, horrendous, sinister’
(Schmid 1998: 171f.)
ga-leiks ‘like’ = ON (g)líkr ‘like, resembling; likely’, OE gelīc ‘like, alike, similar, OS gilîk
<gilik, gilic>, etc.) ‘like, alike, equal, similar, the same’, OHG gilîh ‘same, similar’
(Schmid 1998: 449, 553; see ga-leika* above and ga-leiks, leik in App.)
i-leiks [what-like] ‘of what sort’ (§3.25) = OHG (h)ue-līh ‘which’ (Wilmanns 1896:
474, 575; Schmid 1998: 451f.)
ibna-leiks* [equal-body/form] ‘equivalent’ (acc sg f -leika Sk 5.4.21); cf. OHG ebanlīh
(eba/enli(c)h etc.) ‘similar, uniform equal’, OE efenlīc ‘id. < Gmc. *ebna-līkaz
(Wilmanns 1896: 555; Schmid 1998: 169, 450; GPA 171, HGE 82)
liuba-leiks* ‘lovely, lovable’ (nom sg n liubaleik Phil 4:8B) = OS lioflīk <lioblic>
(Heliand 2394C+) ‘lovely, beautiful, charming’, OHG liublīh (liuplich etc.) ‘id.’, OE
lēoflīc ‘lovely, charming, beautiful; valuable, precious’ (cf. ON adv liúfliga ín a
lovely manner’) < Gmc. *leuba-līkaz [love-like] (Schmid 1998: 298f.; KM 227; GPA
377; HGE 241)
missa-leiks [mis-like] ‘diverse, varied, various’ (Sk 6.3.12f. + other forms rendering Gk.
poikílos ‘diverse, varied, various’) = ON mislíkr ‘id.’, OS misslīk* (acc sg/pl n mislic etc.)
‘different, various, unlike’, OHG mis(si)līh (misselich etc.) ‘diverse, different, varied, vari-
ous, manifold, multifarious’, OE mislīc, misse(n)lic ‘different, unlike, varied, diverse,
various’ < *missa-līkaz (Schmid 1998: 319ff.; GED 142, 257, EWDS 562, HGE 272)
sama-leiks* [same-form] ‘identical, the same’ (nom sg f samaleika Mk 14:59, nom pl
f samaleikos Mk 14:56) = OHG samalīh (sama/elich etc.) ‘of the same kind, similar’;
cf. OE adv samlīce ‘together’ (Schmid 1998: 350)
silda-leiks [seldom/rare-form] ‘wonder(ful), marvel(ous)’ (Mk 12:11,17 nom sg n silda-
leik Jn 9:30, 2Cor 11:14B) glosses forms of Gk. thaumastós ‘id.’ (v.l. thaũma ‘marvel’
at 2Cor 11:14); cf. OS seldlīk <seldlic> (Heliand 3128CM+) ‘wondrous, strange,
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
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.)
7.23 The composition vowel

The conditions under which the composition vowel remains have long defied analysis.
For Kremer (1882), an accented vowel remains. For Kroesch (1908) Streitberg’s loss
of -a- after a heavy syllable or trisyllable holds except in new formations. This is
circular and challenged by Hermann (1923: 285) on the grounds that formations
like hauh-þūhts ‘conceited’ are not old Germanic. This section looks at various poten-
tial criteria.
Endocentric compounds normally have a juncture vowel. As a general rule, on -u-
stems it is -u- (faihu-gawaurki ‘money (making) business’, fotu-baurd ‘footstool’,
grundu-waddjus ‘foundation’), on -i- stems -i- (gabaurþi-waurd* ‘birth record, geneal-
ogy’, gasti-godei* ‘hospitality’, mati-balgs* ‘food-sack, travelbag’), and on -a- stems -a-
(aiza-smiþa ‘coppersmith’, alewa-bagms ‘olive tree’) (Douse 1886: 118f.; Karpov 2005a:
20). Seebold (1968c: 81f.) counts over forty N + N endocentric compounds with -a-.
Of the endocentrics lacking a composition vowel, two are the anomalous gud-hūs*
[God-house] ‘temple’ and gud-blostreis ‘worshipper of God’. Another is the -i- stem
brūþ- ‘bride’ in brūþ-faþs ‘bridegroom’. Two have a derivational suffix that blocks the
juncture vowel (Wilmanns 1897: 373): þiud-an–gardi ‘kingdom’ and sig-is–laun ‘vic-
tory prize’, an old *-es- stem (NWG 562; EDPG 430). A similar point is made by
Seebold (1968c: 80f.) for midj-un–gards* ‘world’, which is also endocentric but of the
A + N variety. Most notable of the remaining exceptions is baurg-s–waddjus ‘city wall’,
which contains an inflectional suffix (genitive -s) that had the same blocking effect.
Juncture -a- can be observed to spread in several words, e.g. hrainja-hairts* ‘clean-
hearted’ to the -i- stem hrains ‘clean’ (NWG 290), if indeed an -i- stem and not a *-ja-
stem (Snædal 2002c: 260). Consonant stems regularly adopt -a-, as in nahta-mats*
‘dinner, supper’ to the consonant stem nahts ‘night’ (Wrede 1891: 188f.; Seebold
1968c: 91, 97; NWG 433). But there was also competition, as in the -u- stem type
broþru-lubo* beside consonant-stem -a- in broþr-a-lubo* ‘brotherly love’.18
Light -ja- stems keep -ja-, e.g. wadja-bokos ‘record of charges’, fraþja-marzeins
‘mind-deceit’. Apart from hrainja-hairts* ‘clean-hearted’ (with recent -a-), -ja- stems
after a heavy syllable show up as -i-, e.g. arbi-numja ‘heir’, andi-laus* ‘endless’ (Douse
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’.
at-aþni* ‘this (current) year’, hindar-weis* ‘deceitful’ / hindar-weisei* ‘guile’, ib-dalja*

‘descent’, in-gardja* ‘household member’, in-witoþs ‘subject to the law’, ufar-fulls*
‘overfull, packed’, ufar-gudja* ‘high priest’, ufar-swara* ‘perjurer’, uf-wairs* ‘married’,
undar-leija* ‘lowest of the low’, us-stiurei ‘loss of control’, us-weihs* ‘irreverent’. The
huge class of bahuvrihis with a P-word is listed in Dolcetti Corazza (1997: 36–74).
Since some P-words end in -a, the composition form is just their lexical shape,
e.g. ana-minds* ‘suspicion’, ga-hlaiba* ‘cohort, companion’, ga-waurstwa ‘fellow
worker’.
The distribution of faur ‘in front, ahead, before’ and faura ‘id.’ is not always clear. As
prefixes, faur- normally appears on verbs and faura- on nouns, e.g. faura-filli ‘prepuce’,
faura-gagga* ‘manager’, faura-dauri* ‘street’. There are some old semantic differences
between the two (§§6.10f.), and in all likelihood their overlap is more recent (Seebold
1968c: 84f.). Bennett (1972: 108) contrasts faùr-gággan ‘pass by’ with faúra gággan ‘go
before’. Several accounts have been given for the pair in (7).
(7) a) faurhāh alhs diskritnoda in twa (Mt 27:51)
b) faurahāh als disskritnoda in twa (Mk 15:38)
curtain temple.gen get.torn.3sg.pret in two
‘the curtain of the temple ripped in two’
By the usual distribution, faur-hāh (n -a-) [fore-hanging] ‘curtain’ should be derived

from a nonexistent verb *faur-hāhan ‘hang in front’ (NWG 76, w. lit), while faura-hāh
should be a nominal compound. Seebold (1968a: 84) argues that faura- is the rule
in nominal compounds but that faur- and faura- merely coexist in faur(a)hāh. For
Bennett (1970: 466), faurhāh is a contraction of /f ŕ a-(h)ah/, and for Rauch (1981:
396), faurhāh is an instance of -a- loss, and the -a- in faurahāh bears quadernary stress
(2017: 242). But what precludes spread of juncture -a-, or just reanalysis of faurhāh
with a nominal second constituent and ‘regularization’ of faura-? In such an isolated
example there is no evidence for the nature or direction of the change.
Because of at least northern Indo-European accentuation (Seebold 1968c: 69–75,
83, 93), the prefix and(a)- occurs as inseparable and- on verbs (rarely anda-) and
nearly always as anda- on nouns, e.g. anda-nahti ‘evening’ (cf. Bennett 1972:
108f.), anda-staua (Mt 5:25) ‘opponent at law’, anda-þāhts ‘clear-thinking, sober-
minded’, etc.
Apocope is the norm before a vowel-initial constituent, e.g. and-augi ‘face; (in)
presence’. The exceptions are well-known: galiuga-apaustauleis ‘false apostles’ and
aftra-anastodeins* (dat -sto|deinai Sk 1.4.6f.) ‘revival’ (cf. Seebold 1968c: 75).
Numerals that are normally indeclinable (§3.29) and those with special composition
forms have no juncture vowel: fidur-dogs ‘(of) four days’, fidur-ragini* ‘tetrarchate’,
twis-stass* ‘dissension’, etc. Contrast the declined numbers, which have a vowel:
hunda-faþs ‘centurion’, þūsundi-faþs ‘chiliarch’. But if ain-lif* ‘eleven’ (< *aina-lifa-; see
VG 62, Neri 2016: 29) was originally accented like Lith. vienuõ-lika ‘eleven’, accentuation
can explain the absence of -a- (Seebold 1968c: 93).
322 Compounding
Possibly by analogy to fidur-falþs* ‘fourfold’ and other potential compounds

with undeclinable numerals, other multiplicative compounds take no juncture vowel:
ain-falþs ‘single’ (beside aina-baur* ‘only begotten (one)’), taihuntēhundfalþs* (acc sg
n taihuntaihundfalþ Lk 8:8; cf. Mk 10:30) ‘hundredfold’, manag-falþs* ‘manifold’
(Wilmanns 1896: 595f.; Seebold 1968c: 76).
Seebold (p. 91) makes a point about deadjectival abstract -dūþs having no juncture
vowel, but this is a suffix (§8.12), and no other suffix is preceded by a ‘juncture’ vowel
unless the vowel is part of its synchronic lexical representation (see ch. 8).
It appears that the exceptions to a juncture vowel in the non-N + N endocentrics in
this sample are as numerous as those with a juncture vowel. However, of the eight
exceptions (ignoring obscure examples like þrutsfill ‘leprosy’), five contain a P-word
(at-aþni*, ib-dalja*, in-gardja*, ufar-gudja*, ufar-swara*), one is fidur-ragini* with a
numeral, and one is midjun-gards* with a suffixed initial constituent. That leaves
one potential exception, laus-handja* ‘empty-hander’, for which absence of the
juncture vowel could be regular (§7.15). The ‘exceptions’, then, are patterned and
compositionally different. Non-N+N endocentrics have a juncture vowel of some sort
(usually -a-).
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.
8.2 PIE noun types

Proto-Indo-European had several different noun types, based on paradigm. See
the overviews in Meier-Brügger (2010: 327–36) and Lundquist & Yates (2017).
Different terms are in use for each type; cf. (1). This taxonomic classification is
retained here for convenience only. Due to massive restructurings in the IE lan-
guages, the class of many nouns is difficult to ascertain, and the accuracy of the
classes is in doubt.2
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.

324 Nominal derivation
(1) PIE noun types (traditional classification)

1. Static accent
a) Acrostatic/acrodynamic (constant radical accent)
*dóm- / *dém- ‘house’ *wód-r / *wéd-n- ‘water’ (singular)
*nók -t- / *nék -t- ‘night’ *nébhos / *nébhes- ‘cloud’ (LIE neuter type)
w w
b) Mesostatic/mesodynamic (constant suffixal accent)

Gk. tīm ‘honor’
c) Teleutostatic (constant accent on the final syllable)
2. Mobile accent
a) proterokinetic/proterodynamic (root – oblique stem accent)
*mén-ti- / *mn-téy- ‘mind’ *séh1-mn / *sh1-mén- ‘seed’
*dóru / *dréw- ‘tree; wood’
b) hysterokinetic/hysterodynamic (stem – oblique case accent)
*ph2tér- / *ph2tr-´ ‘father’ *(h2)uk(w)sén- / * (h2)uk(w)sn-´ ‘bull, ox’
*dhugh2tér- / *dhugtr-´ ‘daughter’
c) amphikinetic/amphidynamic (root – oblique case accent)
*p d-s / *pód- / *ped-´ ‘foot’ *póntoh2 / *pnth2-´ (?) ‘path’
*ḱ r / *ḱrd-´ ‘heart’
d) holokinetic/holodynamic (root – stem – oblique case accent)
[classified as amphikinetic by some, e.g. Ringe]
*dhéǵhōm / *(dh)ǵhm-´ / loc *dhǵhém or ?*ghdhsém ‘earth’
*wéd-ōr / *ud-n-´ / loc *ud-én(i) ‘mass of water’ (neut ‘collective’)
These classes can be distinguished by their accentual behavior, e.g. static accent
(on the same syllable through the paradigm) vs. mobile accent (shifting in the oblique
cases from the root or stem to a suffix). Suffixes with accentual dominance disrupt
expected word accentuation, and other patterns (Kiparsky 2010; Lundquist &
Yates 2017, w. lit).
Disyllabic nouns with static accent, like thematic *yugóm ‘yoke’, *éḱwos ‘horse’,
shift it in derivation, e.g. *kwékwl-o- ‘wheel’ : *kw(e)kwl-éh2- ‘set of wheels’ (cf. Steer 2014).
The affix *-(e)h2 made set nouns (> neut pl), derived abstracts, nouns belonging to a
set, and animates (> esp. feminine) (Melchert et al. 2014; MPIE 2.1.2f.). For parallel
gender splits and the rise of gender systems see Miller (2010: ii. ch. 5, with Creole
evidence), Luraghi (e.g. 2009a, 2011, 2014).
8.3 Gothic and pre-Gothic noun formation

This chapter focuses on the most important nominal and adjectival suffixes that
characterize Gothic, some of PIE date, others geographically localized or specific to
Germanic. Most researchers (e.g. Buckalew 1964; Pimenova 2004b; Novickaja 2010)
distinguish stem-building suffixes (*-e/os-, *-yo-, etc.) from word formation suffixes
8.4 -assus (m -u-) 325
(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).
8.4 -assus (m -u-)

Goth. -assus is frequent to -inon verbs (GS 171f., 514; VGS 114f.; Wilmanns 1896: 354;
KM 159f.; MUN 160; Neri 2003: 306f.; NWG 533–8) and denotes a condition or state
(Ambrosini 1958: 229, w. lit). Consider drauhtinassus* [condition of fighting] ‘military
service, campaign’, from drauhtinon* ‘enlist (someone) as a soldier; serve as a soldier,
wage war’ (Velten 1930: 343), fraujinassus* ‘dominion’, (fraujinon ‘be lord [frauja],
rule’), gudjinassus* ‘(Jewish) priesthood’ (gudjinon* ‘perform priestly [gudja] duties’
Laird 1940: 58ff.), horinassus ‘adultery’ (horinon ‘commit adultery’ [hors ‘adulterer’]),
le(i)kinassus* ‘healing, cure, curing’ (leikinon for lekinon* ‘heal, cure’ [lekeis ‘physi-
cian’]), skalkinassus ‘slavery; service’ (skalkinon ‘be a slave [skalks], serve’ Pausch 1954:
42f.) vs. þiwadw (§2.13) ‘(bearing children for) slavery’ (Barasch 1973: 146).
Nouns in -assus name concrete realizations of acts (Gusmani 1967), qualities to be
emulated, or transgressions to be avoided. In (2), | = line divisions in B (Braun 1913).
(2) | horinassus, | kalkinassus, | unhrainiþa, | aglaitei | (Gal 5:19A/B)
‘adultery, illicit sex, uncleanness, debauchery’
(3) horinassu, unhrainein, winnon, lustu ubila[na]
adultery uncleanness desire lust evil
sei ist galiuga.gud–e skalkinassus (Col 3:5B)
rel:nom.sg.f is false.god–gen.pl service
‘adultery, uncleanness, desire, evil lust . . . , which is the service of false gods’
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).
‘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).
8.5 -ei (f -n-)

Not counting negated and other duplicate forms, Casaretto (2004: 281–311) lists a
hundred -ei derivatives, four of which occur on loanwords (cf. Weber 1991: 166–89).
In the borrowed lexical items, -ei designates the office of high level ecclesiastical func-
tionaries, e.g. aipiskaupei* ‘episcopate, bishopric’ (aipiskaupus ‘bishop’), apaustaulei*
‘office of an apostle’ (apaust(a)ulus ‘apostle’), praizbwtairei* ‘presbytery’.
The suffix -ei attaches to bases of any permitted size or metrical shape, cf. barniskei*
‘childishness’ [1Cor 13:11 acc pl barniskeins ‘childish things’] (barnisk- ‘childish’),
drugkanei* ‘drunkenness’ [cf. ON drukkni, OHG truncanī / trunkenī ‘id.’] (drugkan-
‘drunk(en)’, OE druncen drunk) (HGE 77, EDPG 103), naqadei ‘nakedness’ (naqaþs
‘naked’), siukei ‘sickness’ (siuks ‘sick’), ufarfullei* ‘superabundance, over-fullness’
(ufarfulls* ‘over-full’), etc.
Most -ei formations are deadjectival (many compounded: Johansson 1904: 484f.;
Grewolds 1932: 39–44), some deverb, e.g. liuhadei* ‘illumination’ (*liuhadjan ‘illuminate’
NWG 307), waurstwei ‘performance, practice’ (*waurstwjan ‘make, work’ NWG 308).
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
Weitwodei ‘testifying, witnessing’ (to weitwodjan* ‘bear witness’ [Pimenova 2004b:

259f.] rather than denom to weitwoþs* ‘witness’ [NWG 306]), miþ-wissei (11x, 6 dupl;
Epistles only) ‘moral knowledge, judgment’ to 1.witan ‘know’ (Regan 1972: 141).
Additionally, there are extended *-īn- formations, such as Goth. managei ‘multitude’
(Mezger 1946). Baurþei ‘burden, load’ and OHG burdī ‘id.’ may be extended from *bur-
þi- < IE *bhr-tí- [*bher- ‘bear’]; cf. Ved. bhrtí- ‘load, burden’ (HGE 64) or derived from
the PPP *burþa- < *bhrtó- ‘borne’ (NWG 296). Semantically the former is preferable.
Deadjectival -ei denotes a property, attribute, or inherent trait, often predicated of
a subject (Pimenova 2000, 2004a, b), as is typical of states. States can be temporary,
variable, or permanent (LSDE 14f., w. lit), and Gothic -ei formations encompass all
three, e.g. ainfalþei* ‘simplicity; frankness, sincerity’, audagei ‘blessedness’ (Gal 4:15A),
from audags ‘blessed’ but with a semantic model in Gk. makarismós ‘(sense of) blessing’
(Velten 1930: 490), baitrei ‘bitterness’, digrei* ‘plenitude’, drugkanei* ‘drunkenness’,
harduhairtei* ‘hardheartedness’ (calque on Gk. sklērokardíā NCG 94; LCG 229;
Snædal 2015a: 79), naqadei ‘nakedness’, etc.
Negated formations are frequent, e.g. unagei* dat unagein (Lk 1:74) ‘in unfearing’ =
Gk. aphóbōs ‘fearlessly’, Lat. sine timōre / metū ‘without fear’ (*unags ‘fearless’; cf. agis
‘fear’), unbeistei* (1Cor 5:8A) ‘unleavenedness’ (cf. beist ‘yeast, leaven’), undiwanei*
(1Tim 6:16B, 1Cor 15:53A/B, 15:54A) ‘immortality’ (diwans* [1Cor 15:53A/B, 54A,
2Cor 5:4A/B] ‘mortal’ orig. PPP of *diwan ‘die’: Sturtevant 1953: 56f.), unfrodei*
(Lk 6:11, 2Cor 11:1B, 11:17B, 11:21B) ‘lack of knowledge; nonsense’ (Elkin 1954: 343)
(unfroþs Bl 2r.18 ‘foolish’: Falluomini 2014: 292, 305), unhrainei* (Col 3:5A/B) ‘unclean-
ness’ (unhrains ‘unclean’), unriurei* (2Tim 1:10A/B, Eph 6:24B, 1Cor 15:50A/B, 15:53A/B)
‘uncorruption’ (unriurs* ‘incorruptible, perishable’; cf. Barasch 1973: 132), unselei*
(15x, 3 dupl) ‘wickedness’ (unsels* ‘unkind’), unswerei* (2Cor 6:8A/B) ‘dishonor’ (unswers
‘ignoble, unhonored’), unwammei* (1Cor 5:8) ‘flawlessness, sincerity’ (unwamms*
‘spotless, unstained’), unwerei* (2Cor 7:11A/B) ‘indignation’ (*unwereis ‘disagreeable’).
Following are illustrations of some Gothic -ei formations:
(4) ei . . . mageiþ gafāhan miþ allaim þaim weiham ƕa sijai
braidei jah laggei jah hauhei jah diupei (Eph 3:18A/B)
‘that you can comprehend with all those holy (men) what may be
the breadth and length and height and depth’
(5) nih riurei unriureins arbjo wairþiþ (1Cor 15:50A/B)

‘nor does corruption get to be the heiress of uncorruption’
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
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).
8.6 Examples of *-īn- (f -n-) across Germanic
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)
8.7 -iþa (f -ō-)

Less negated and other duplicate forms, Gothic has thirty-five -iþa abstract nouns (NWG
463–75; cf. Meyer 1869: 441), all feminine (Hüllhorst 1902). Most are deadjectival, some
deverbal, some associated with an adjective and a verb (Grimm 1826: 242; Wilmanns
1896: 338f.; Kluge 1899, 1926: §116; GGS 165f.; LCG 221; Pimenova 2004a: 166).
Since -iþa attaches to heavy monosyllabic bases, the output in the citation form
(nominative singular) is duple-timed dactylic (§2.12). See the following short list.
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)
swegniþa / swigniþa* (Lk 1:44 dat) ‘exultation’ (deverbal to swegnjan* / swignjan

‘exult, rejoice, triumph’: Seebold 1968a: 13f.; NWG 474; Pimenova 2004a: 170)5
un-hrainiþa ‘uncleanness’ (unhrains ‘unclean’)
wargiþa ‘condemnation, damnation’ (deverbal to gawargjan* ‘condemn’: Seebold 1968a: 14;
NWG 474; Pimenova 2004a: 173); cf. ON vargr ‘wolf; robber; outlaw’ (Pausch 1954: 81ff.)
weihiþa ‘holiness’ (weihs ‘holy’)
By the syllabification -VC.RV- (§2.11), agliþa* ‘tribulation’ (1Thess 3:4B) is dactylic.

Since weitwodiþa ‘testimony’ has a dactylic cadence, it is not a true exception either.
There is only one genuine exception, dwaliþa ‘foolishness’ = Gk. mōríā (Elkin 1954:
355f.) (dwals* ‘foolish; fool’), attested four times in rapid succession (1Cor 1:18, 21,
23, 25—all MS A).6
In sharp contrast to -ei, which frequently has the negative prefix un-, there are only
two negated -iþa forms: unhrainiþa (5x) ‘unclean act, uncleanness’ and unsweriþa*
(2Cor 11:21B dat -ai) ‘dishonor’.
The basic use of the suffix can be illustrated with niujiþa* ‘newness’ (niujis ‘new’)
and fairniþa* ‘oldness’ (cf. fairneis* ‘old, worn out’):
(6) swaei skalkinoma in niujiþai ahmins, jah ni fairniþai bokos (Rom 7:6)
‘so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit,
and not the oldness of the letter’
Goth. daubiþa* (2x gen sg) illustrates the problem with some interpretations.
(7) gaurs in daubiþos hairtins ize (Mk 3:5)
‘sorrowful because of the hardness of their heart’
(8) in daubiþos hairtane seinaize (Eph 4:18A/B)

‘over the hardness of their own hearts’
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.
8.8 Competition between -ei and -iþa
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
waila-merei* ‘good repute’, waja-merei* ‘bad repute’ / meriþa ‘fame’

[wailamerei* and wajamerei* are both hapaxes; see (10) below]
weitwodei ‘(act, result, and substance of) testimony’ / weitwodiþa / weitwodida ‘id.’
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’
(14) horinassus, kalkinassus, unhrainiþa, aglaitei (Gal 5:19A/B)

‘adultery, illicit sex, uncleanness, debauchery’
Unhrainiþa may be a concrete act in (13). In (14), it appears in a list of transgressions

and, as such, is probably also not an abstract state. Although Kotin (2012: 198) claims
that unhrainein in (12) is definite, it is at best ambiguous if not indefinite. Moreover,
unhrainiþai in (13) is contextually definite, and aglaitei ‘debauchery’ in (14) seems to
be indefinite, like unhrainiþa, contrary to the Novickaja–Kotin prediction.
To conclude this section, there are examples of at least partial semantic overlap
between -ei and -iþa. Additionally, regardless of the semantic splits that took place
between the two suffixes, -iþa latched onto a prosodic domain. The nature of this
domain, in contrast to -ei which attached to bases of any permissible structure, was
that the citation form was dactylic or, in the case of weitwodiþa, had a dactylic cadence.
9 Written fri|damma (Snædal 2013a: i. 61).
10 So MS A; B has aglaiteino, currently read as aglaitein*, an *-ī(n) stem (cf. Pimenova 2004b: 261).
The synchronic root of aglaitei ‘debauchery’, aglaiti* ‘debauchery, licentiousness’, etc. is aglait- (Grienberger
1900: 10f.; Buckalew 1964: 180; Schubert 1968: 43). Casaretto (2004: 304) exaggerates the problem.
8.9 -þs / -ds / -ts / -ss (f -i-)

This suffix derives abstract or concrete nouns, primarily from verbal roots. The fol-
lowing examples are attested in more than one Germanic language.11 Note that pre-
fixation in Gothic is seldom matched in the rest of Germanic, and that formations
derived from preterite presents and certain other verb types are not prefixed.
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-.
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
8.10 -þus / -dus / -tus (m -u-)

This suffix sometimes makes derivatives parallel to -þ/d/t- in the previous section.
When the same root makes both derivatives, they are not identical in formation,
and -tu- is not prefixed. They differ in gender (-tu- is masculine) and/or meaning
(Groscurth 1930: 45f.; Benveniste 1948: 105ff., 110f.; Kotin 2012: 390). For instance,
Gothic ga-kusts* ‘proof ’ contrasts with kustus* ‘trial (undergone by someone)’ in at
least the following passages:
(15) þairh gakust þis andbahtjis (2Cor 9:13B)
‘by the proof of this ministry’ (i.e. by what proof it provides)
(16) in managamma kustau aglons managdūþs fahedais ize (2Cor 8:2A/B)

‘in the frequent trial of tribulation the abundance of their joy (abounded)’
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).
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)
IE *-tú- made deverbal abstracts that served as infinitives in several IE languages

and the supine (motion verb complement) in Latin (VGS 101, Benveniste 1948: 96–104,
LSDE 122–6; Weiss 2011: 444f.). It also made result nouns that were more concrete than
*-ti- (cf. Luraghi 2009b: 117–21). Like most suffixes, *-tu- was polysemic: Gk. kleitús
‘slope’ (event > path, entity), Ved. sétu- ‘bond’ (means, instrument), gātú- ‘path’ (event
of going > place of going, location), jantú- ‘creature’ (result), etc. (cf. Melchert 1983: 16).
Lat. portus ‘harbor, port, haven’ goes back to *pr-tú- beside *pér-tu- ‘crossing’ [*per-
‘pass over’]. The lexical split is likely of PGmc. date: *fer-þu-z > ON, Norw. fjorðr ‘inlet,
firth’ beside *fur-du-z > OE ford ford, OHG furt ‘id.’ (AHDR 66, VG 84ff., 488ff., 506ff.,
HGE 119, NWG 518, EDL 482, Mottausch 2011: 27, EDPG 160, LHE2 74, 306).
8.12 -dūþs (f -i-) 339
8.11 -ōþus / -ōdus (m -u-)

This suffix is not productive in Germanic. Gothic has only five formations
(Bernharðsson 2001: 79–81; VGS 102, NWG 531f.). Three are deverbal: auhjodus* (Mk
5:38, 15:7) ‘uproar, noise’ (auhjon* ‘make a noise’); acc sg gaunoþu* (MSS gaunoþa
2Cor 7:7A/B) ‘lamentation’ (cf. OE gēanoð ‘id.’) derived from gaunon ‘lament’; and
dat pl wratodum (2Cor 11:26B) ‘journey’ (wraton* ‘travel’). Unclear is dat pl gabaur-
joþum (Lk 8:14) ‘pleasure, enjoyment’ (no verbal root attested; cf. 2.gabaur (m -a-)
‘carousing, revelry, merry-making’16), often derived from an adv *gabaurjō ‘pleasur-
ably’, but gabaurjaba (7x, 2 dupl, one as a gloss) ‘gladly’ does not guarantee an adv in -o
(§3.32). The final form, manniskodus* (gen sg mannis|kodaus Sk 6.2.17f.) ‘human-
ness’ (mannisks* ‘human’), is probably denominal (NWG 532). Sturtevant (1954: 450f.)
rightly questions why it should be, but his idea of an inherited *-ātu- formation does
not jibe with the rest of Germanic.
Originally a variant of *-tu- on stems in *-eh2/3-, examples of this suffix in other
Indo-European languages are Lat. vēnātus ‘(practice of the) hunt’ (vēnārī ‘to hunt’),
Gk. boētús ‘shout, war-cry’ (boáein ‘to shout’), and Celtic, e.g. Gaul. molatus ‘praise’,
OIr. molad ‘id.’ (OIr. molaid ‘praises’) (Schumacher 2000: 78, LSDE 51, EDPC 275). In
Germanic, this formation is related most closely to wk 2 verbs in -ōn (VGS 101f., KM
158, NWG 520f.). It has a Verner’s Law alternant *-ōðu- as a mobile accent reflex of IE
oxytones (Kiparsky 2010). The suffix is probably attested in runic laþōdu ‘invitation’
(ORI 64), but probably not in the name Haukōþuz [?p500] (Nedoma 2018: 1592).
8.12 -dūþs (f -i-)

The deadjectival abstract suffix *-dūþi- (Goth. -dūþ-) is residual and in the process
of giving way to other suffixes (Gürtler 1923: 83). It occurs only in Gothic and only
in four words (Bréal 1889: 688ff.; GGS 166; Benveniste 1961: 44f.; Schubert 1968: 51;
NWG 540):
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).
sense of ‘Holy Communion’ is modeled on Gk. koinōníā, Lat. commūnicātiō ‘id.’

(Velten 1930: 490)
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?’
managdūþs (2Cor 8:2A/B) ‘abundance’ (manags* ‘much, many’)

managdūþs fahedais ize . . . usmanagnoda (2Cor 8:2A/B)
‘the copiousness of their joy . . . became abundant’
mikildūþs (Sk 4.2 [2x], 7.1) ‘greatness’ < *mikil-dūþ-i- (mikils ‘great, large, many’)
mikildūþs . . . fraujins wulþaus kannida (Sk 4.2.17; see §10.8)
‘the greatness of the Lord of glory he made known’
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’.
8.13 -ns (adj and f -i-)

Nouns in bare *-ni- were not productive in Germanic. Bahder (1880: 80ff.) lists only
fifteen examples. Of the five Gothic examples in Losch (1887: 223f.) and NWG (333–6),
only the following two have identical correspondents elsewhere in Germanic:
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
For adjectives, there are a few good examples (cf. KM 116):
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.)
In Indo-European, this suffix made verbal adjectives and nouns. A widespread

example is Lat. ignis ‘fire’, Lith. ugnìs ‘id.’, Ved. agní- ‘fire; god of fire’, etc. < *h1ngw-ní-
(EDL 297). For a more transparent verbal root, cf. Ved. ghŕṇi- ‘heat’ < *g whr-ní-
[*gwher- ‘become warm’ LIV 219f.] and dharṇí- ‘sustaining’ [*dher- ‘fasten, hold (fast)’
LIV 145].
It is often assumed that *-ni- derivatives were originally proterokinetic (e.g. VG
453ff.), but this type may not have existed (see §8.2 and Kiparsky 2010).
Since -n- stems were used for body parts (§8.23), it is not surprising that regionally
the extended form *-ni- became common on body parts (cf. KM 117), e.g. Lat. crīnis
‘hair of the head’ < *kris-ni- (cf. OE hrīs ‘branch, brush’), pēnis ‘tail; penis’ < *pes-ni-,18
pellis ‘skin, hide’ < *pel-ni- (EDL 455; thematized in Germanic to *pel-no- > *fella-
§8.33). Common to much of Indo-European was *ḱlou-ni- ‘hip, buttock’ in Ved. śróṇi-
‘buttock, hip, loin’, Lith. šlaunìs ‘haunch, thigh, hip’, Lat. clūnis ‘buttocks, haunch (of
animals)’, ON hlaun (n) ‘buttocks, loin’ (VG 453, EDL 123, EDPG 229).
The Indo-European word for ‘heel’ was split between a *-ni- stem and a *-no-/-neh2-
stem. The former occurs in Ved. parṣṇi- and OE fiers(i)n, fyrsn, the latter in Lat. perna
‘(upper) leg, thigh’ and Goth. fairzna ‘heel’ (Jn 13:18), among others19 (Wilmanns 1896:
314; Wood 1926; VG 393f., NWG 322f., EDL 460f., Mottausch 2011: 136, EDPG 137).
Pronk (2015: 338f.) reconstructs *ts-pe r-s-n-h2-, Ringe (2017: 95) *p rs-n- for Latin
and Germanic, with Osthoff ’s Law to shorten the tautosyllabic long vowel.
Adjectives in *-ni- were not plentiful, and none reconstruct across the Indo-European
languages. Isolated examples include Lat. lēnis ‘smooth; gentle; easy’ and Ved. pŕśni-
‘speckled’.
More productively, *-ni- was applied to the stems of the weak verbs yielding *-ī-ni-,
*-ō-ni-, *-ai-ni-, etc. (§§8.15f.; cf. Kotin 2012: 390f.).
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).
8.14 -eins (f -(īn)i-)

The primary function of this suffix is to make deverbal nominalizations (Losch 1887:
244), as in—
(17) du timreinai galaubeinais (Eph 4:29A/B)
‘for the building of faith’
(18) du qisteinai leikis (1Cor 5:5A)

‘for the destruction of the body’
(19) biþe qam usfulleins melis (Gal 4:4A)

‘when the fullness/fulfillment of time had come’
Nouns in -eins derive primarily from (especially prefixed) wk 1 verbs (Johansson

1904: 471f.; Grewolds 1932: 27). From Goth. sokjan ‘seek’, for instance, was built a
noun *sōk-īni- > sokeins ‘question(ing), query(ing)’ (NWG 356). Of the 242 -jan
verbs (GS 320–32), 66 (excluding prefixed forms) made -eins derivatives (GS 230–3,
VGS 83).
In conjunction with the wk 1 verbs, one source was iterative, causative *-éye-:
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)
Another source was Sievers’ Law:
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
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).
8.15 -ains, -ons (f -(ain)i-, -(on)i-)

Parallel to -eins (§8.14) are -ons from wk 2 verbs in -on (VGS 83, 88) and -ains from
wk 3 -ai- verbs. Examples are salbons* (gen salbonais Jn 12:3) ‘ointment, perfume’
(salbon ‘anoint’), libains ‘life’ (liban ‘to live’, 2sg libais). Gothic had forty-four -ai-
verbs (GS 684–8), out of which fifteen -ains derivatives were made (GS 233, 685–8,
VGS 83).
Out of seventy-four verbs in -on (GS 617–23, VGS 83), Gothic attests nine -ons for-
mations (or eleven, counting prefixed forms), not one of which has a correspondent
elsewhere in Germanic (NWG 359–62; cf. Losch 1887: 240). Examples include laþons
in the Epistles (9x, 5 dupl) ‘calling’ and Luke (‘redemption’ 2:38, ‘consolation’ 2:25)
(laþon ‘call, summon’), mitons ‘cogitation, meditation, deliberation’ (miton* ‘ponder,
discuss, reason’), and frijons* ‘(salutory) kiss’ (frijon ‘love’), which may be modeled
on Gk. phílēma ‘id.’ (phileĩn ‘to love’) for the form or meaning (Velten 1930: 344;
NWG 359).
One reason for the rarity of -ons formations to -on verbs is that the latter were
partly paired with -inassu- derivatives, e.g. skalkinon ‘serve’ : skalkinassus ‘service’,
horinon ‘commit adultery’ : horinassus ‘adultery’, etc. (§8.4; cf. VGS 83, GGS 168,
Kotin 2012: 391). Another is that -on verbs were originally denominal to *-ō- stem
nouns (LHE2 285).
Gothic has fifteen *-aini- derivatives (NWG 363–9; cf. Losch 1887: 238f.), e.g. bauains
‘dwelling, habitation’ (bauan ‘dwell, inhabit’), libains ‘life’ (liban ‘live’), leikains* ‘liking,
predilection; preference; pleasure’ (leikan* ‘please, be pleasing’), lubains* (gen sg
lubainais Rom 15:13C) ‘hope’ (cf. Lat. LVBAINI VX(ORI) CIL 13.3622 ‘for his wife
Lubain’ from a Roman villa in Belgium [c2] beside stative lub-ē-re ‘to be pleasing’),
8.16 -ma (m -n-), -mo (f, n -n-) 345
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
8.16 -ma (m -n-), -mo (f, n -n-)

Gothic has only ten examples of this suffix (NWG 270–5), plus the loanword drakma*
(§1.1). For all of Germanic Bahder (1880: 138–44) cites forty-two examples. Unique
to Gothic are masc ahma ‘spirit’ (see Elkin 1954: 11–19, 347ff.), hiu(h)ma ‘crowd, mass,
heap’ (< *heuh-man- EDPG 224), malma (1x + dat malmin 1x) ‘sand’ (cf. malan* ‘grind,
mill’ < *mólh1-e- EDPG 351), fem klismo (1x) ‘cymbal, gong’. Additional examples follow.
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-.
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.).
8.17 -ubni ~ -ufni / -muni (n -ja-, f -jō-)

This suffix derives concrete entity or state nouns. The alternant -ufni is devoiced from
older -ubni by Thurneysen’s Law (§2.5). The Gothic examples follow (cf. KM 129f.;
Schubert 1968: 40; Cluver 1968: 18; Weber 1991: 242ff.; Woodhouse 2000a: 217f.;
Bernharðsson 2001: 102f.; NWG 278ff.):
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/jain 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.)
(20) ei insandidedi ins merjan | jah haban waldufni

that send.3sg.pret.opt them preach.inf and have.inf power
du hailjan sauhtins (Mk 3:14f.)
to heal.inf sickness.acc.pl
‘that he send them to preach and to have the power to heal sicknesses’ (§9.22)
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:
aglaiti* ‘debauchery, licentiousness’ (*aglaits ‘debauched’), used in the same context as

aglaitei but the two are not necessarily identical (Pimenova 2004b: 261); cf. OHG
agaleizi ‘eagerness, industry, opportunity’ perhaps from Gmc. *agla-laitja-, i.e.
*agla- ‘shameful’ plus *laitja- ‘excited’ (EDPG 3, 4)
aiwaggeli ‘the message (words) of the gospel’ is not the same as aiwaggeljo ‘announce-
ment of good tidings’, both borrowed (§2.13) but split in Gothic (Pimenova 2004b:
256–9)
aiwiski* ‘disgrace’; cf. OE æwisc(e) (f/n) ‘dishonor, disgrace, offense’ [the feminine
form goes back to *aiwiskō-] (cf. Goth. unaiwisks* ‘irreproachable’ §8.34)
andbahti ‘(armed) service’ (Rousseau 2012: 286), ‘ministry, ministration’ (andbahts
‘servant, minister’); cf. ON embætti ‘service; office; the sacrament’, OS ambaht*
(gen ambahtas etc.) ‘office, service, manorial charge’, OHG ambahti ‘id.’, OE ambeht,
ambiht ‘office, service; command, message’ < Gmc. *ambaht- from Celtic; cf. Gaul.-
Lat. ambactus ‘vassal, servant’ with Goth. prefix and- (Høst 1954: 438ff.; Scardigli
1973: 50f.; GED 36, HGE 18, NWG 69, 130, EDPC 32, EDPG 24)
azeti* ‘ease, pleasure’ (*azets ‘easy, pleasurable’, cf. aze/itizo ‘easier’); this root occurs
only in Gothic, the etymology is unknown (NWG 125), and the derivative shows
that this type remained available in Gothic (NWG 122)
badi ‘bed, pallet’ = ON beðr ‘bolster, bedding’, ODu beddi ‘bed’, OHG betti ‘id.’, OF,
OE bed(d) ‘bed’ < Gmc. *bad-ja- generally derived from IE *bhodh-yo- [*bhedh-
‘poke, dig’ LIV 66]; cf. Lat. fodiō ‘I dig’ (EDPG 46), prob military slang despite the
objection by Casaretto to a comparison of a human bed with a sleeping dugout for
animals (NWG 132)
biūhti ‘custom, practice’ (biūhts ‘wont, accustomed’): the adjective bi-ūhts is stand-
ardly reconstructed from *(bi-)unh-ta-, a verbal adjective/participle, but there is
disagreement as to the verbal root. For some, it is to the verb that occurs as Goth.
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
kunþi ‘knowledge, thorough acquaintance’ (Elkin 1954: 374) = ON kynni ‘acquaint-

ance; kinsmen; nature’ < Gmc. *kunþ-ja-, derived from *kunþaz (Goth. kunþs)
‘known, recognized’ (NWG 127)
lausa-waurdi* (only acc pl lausawaurdja 2Tim 2:16B) ‘vain babblings’, a calque on
Gk. keno-phōníā ‘vain-talking, babbling’ rather than derived from lausa-waurds*
‘of idle words; talking idly’ (NWG 141) = ON lausorðr ‘id.’; contrast lausa-waurdei*
(dat sg -waurdein 1Tim 1:6A/B) ‘vain talking, fruitless discussion’ for Gk. mataio-
logíā ‘idle talk, vain-wordedness’ (§7.7; cf. NCG 94); these are not just ‘doublets’
(pace Thöny 2013: 247) and do not have identical meanings (Aston 1958: 26f., 38f.;
Pimenova 2004b: 260f.)
nati (acc) ‘net’ = ON net ‘net, fishnet’, etc. (nati App.)
reiki* ‘rulership, sovereignty, (ruling) power’ (§10.4, App.)
trausti* ‘covenant, pact’ derived from *trausts ‘promising fidelity, pledging troth’;
cf. ON traustr ‘trusty, firm, strong, confident’ < Gmc. *trausta- ‘reliable’
< *drou(H)-sd-o-, to a root *druH- (EDPG 521), the source of Gmc. *trūēn- ‘to trust’
in Goth. trauan (wk 3) ‘trust (in), put confidence in’, ON trúa ‘believe (in), trust’,
etc. (EDPG 523)
þiubi* ‘theft’ (nom pl þiubja Mk 7:22) = ON þýfi ‘theft, stolen goods’, OE þīefe-feoh
(hapax) ‘stolen goods’ < Gmc. *þeub-ja-n, derived from *þeub-a-z ‘thief ’ (Goth. þiubs)
ufar-meli ‘superscription’ (Mk 15:26), ‘inscription’ (Lk 20:24), like ufar-meleins (Mk
12:16) ‘inscription’, a calque on Gk. epigraph (Wolfe 2018b); cf. ufar-meljan* (§5.15)
unhaili (acc) ‘unhealthiness, disability’ (unhails* ‘unhealthy’; see hails in App.)
unkunþi (acc 1Cor 15:34A) ‘ignorance’ (cf. unkunþs ‘unknown’; see kunþs in App.)
unledi ‘indigence, poverty’ derived from unleds ‘propertyless, poor’ = OE unlæd ‘poor,
unlucky; wretched, miserable’, the same root as ON láð ‘land’ (poetic), OE læð
‘land, territory’ (Laws) < Gmc. *lēþa- of disputed source (GED 377, HGE 244;
ignored in EDPG)
unsuti* (dat pl unsutjam 2Cor 6:5A/B) ‘disturbance, riot’, perhaps a substantivized
adjective (NWG 143); cf. suts (1Tim 3:3A/B) ‘mild, gentle’ (suts is the correct read-
ing [Snædal]; there is no nom †sutis; cf. Seebold 1967a), comparative sutizo ‘more
tolerable’, sometimes read *sūt- and related to *swōtu- ‘sweet’ but not without dif-
ficulty (EDPG 503)
unwiti (Mk 7:2, 2Tim 3:9A/B, Eph 4:18A/B) ‘ignorance, senselessness’; cf. unwita
‘ignoramus’, unwitands ‘unknowing, ignorant’, derived from witan ‘to know’
(Elkin 1954: 401–5)
uswissi* (dat uswissja Eph 4:17A/B) ‘vanity, futility’, derived from uswiss* (nom pl m
uswissai 2Tim 2:18B) ‘deviating, straying’; cf. *us-widan ‘separate’, same root as ga-
widan* ‘bind together’, from Gmc. *wedan- ‘join’ [*(H)wedh- = *wedh- ‘lead’ LIV
659]; (us)wiss must go back to Gmc. *wessa- < *wed-ta- < *w(e)dh-to-, and uswissi*
is a Gothic specific derivative *wiss-ja- (cf. VEW 542, GPA 676, NWG 122, 129,
EDPG 577)
wadi ‘pledge, surety’ = ON veð ‘id.’, OS uueddi ‘pledge’, OHG wetti ‘pledge, agreement,
penance’, OE wed(d) ‘pledge, surety; dowry; covenant, pact’ (no Germanic base
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)
8.19 History of Gothic -i
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).
8.20 -is (n -a-)

The IE *-es- stem neuter event nouns were reassigned to the -a- class, but their origin
is guaranteed by alternations between nom -is and gen -is- etc. They mostly represent
physical or psychological states, and later became productive for animals and plants.
Of the thirteen Gothic forms recorded by Weber (1991: 247–50) and Casaretto
(2000, 2004: 559–65), following is a sample (details in Harðarson 2014b; LHE2 310f.).22
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.).
8.21 -a (-an-), -o (n -in/on-, f -on-)

At least sixty-eight actor nominals in -a (-an-) (cf. §8.30) have cognates around
Germanic (Sütterlin 1887: 42–50; Schaffner 2015: 159ff.). Gothic has sixty masculine
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)
8.22 History of the -n- stems
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
́
‘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).
8.23 -ja (-jan-)

The main Germanic function of -jan- is to make (mostly denominal) actor nominals,
specifically occupation labels and agent nouns (GGS 164; Kluge 1911: §108; KM 96ff.;
GG 103), like Goth. haurnja* (acc pl haurnjans Mt 9:23) ‘horn-blower’ (denom to
haurn ‘horn’ or deverbal to haurnjan ‘blow a horn’: Wilmanns 1896: 196), gudja and
runic ranja = Goth. *rannja [runner] ‘attacker, router’ (§1.3), gudija (Nordhuglo,
Norw. [c5]) ‘(high) priest’;26 Goth. fiskja* ‘fisher(man)’ (fisks* ‘fish’), timrja (cf. OHG
zimbrio) ‘carpenter, builder’ (denominal to *timr ‘timber’ but cf. timrjan* ‘to build’)
(Wilmanns 1896: 234f.; NWG 251); OE bylda ‘builder’, wyrhta ‘worker’, dēma ‘judge’,
etc. (GrOE 51).
Goth. frauja ‘lord; Lord’ is by origin an adjective ‘first’ (NWG 266) but *fraw(j)a(n)-
was highly variable (see frauja in App.). In reference to God it is semantically mod-
eled on Gk. kurios ‘lord, master; head of the household; Lord’ (Velten 1930: 490).
Gothic has twenty-four -jan- formations (Sütterlin 1887: 70f.; NWG 255–61). One
of the few attested in Gothic plus other Germanic languages is the following:
(mana)-maurþrja ‘man-slayer, murderer’ = OHG murdreo, OE myrðra < Gmc.

*murþr-jan- (see mana-maurþrja §7.15)
There were common-gender denominals like *bad-(ja)-jōn- ‘bed(sharer)’ (cf. *bad-

ja- ‘bed’ §8.20) in ON beðja (f) ‘wife’ (poetic), OE ge-bedda [co-bedder] ‘consort;
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.).
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.
8.24 -jo (-jon-)

As with -jan- nouns there are very few -jon- derivatives that occur both in Gothic and
other Germanic languages. Consider the following:
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.
8.25 -ing-/-ung- (m -a-) and -l-ing-

The earliest attestations of Germanic *-i/unga- appear in (mostly tribal) names
(cf. KM 200). Examples include Trutungi, Juthungi, and T(h)ervingi [c3/4],27 Gk.
Thoúriggoi / Lat. Thuringi [c5], etc. (VGS 165; Wilmanns 1896: 370; Bremer 1905:
826; Kluge 1926: §27a; Schaffner 2015: 174). One ethnic is attested across West
Germanic:
Goth.-Lat. Gr(e)ut(h)ungi, Greothingi (Ostrogothic tribe: Wrede 1890: 20f.) = ON

Grýtingr, OE (pl) Greotingas, OHG Griuzing (Bremer 1905: 818, 826, Schaffner
2015: 174)
In Old Norse, the ethnic function became productive, e.g. Grœnlendingar

‘Greenlanders’, Finnlendingar ‘Finlanders, Finns’, etc. (Kluge 1926: §27b).
Composite -l-ing- was segmented off -l- stems, as in Gmc. *aþulinga- (m) ‘noble
person’ (ON oðlingr ‘prince’, OE æðeling ‘id.’, OHG ediling ‘nobleman’, etc.) to
*aþulja- (adj) ‘noble’: OE æðele, OHG edili, etc. (§8.28).
This suffix was initially used for tribal names, e.g. Turcilingi (Bremer 1905: 827).
Gothic has only two words with *-l-ing- that are attested across Germanic (Meyer 1864:
82; KM 198, 208f., NWG 575f.):
gadiliggs (m) (Markus gadiliggs Barnabins Col 4:10A/B) ‘cousin’ = OS gaduling

‘extended family member (cousin, nephew); kinsman; countryman’, OHG gatiling
‘relative, parent’, EOE geaduling (Corpus Glossary 2x) ‘cousin’ (1x), ‘nephew’ (1x),
gædeling (3x): Beowulf ‘nephew’ (1x), ‘companion’ (1x), Daniel ‘youth, young man’.
ME gadeling ‘companion; criminal, libertine, vagabond, glutton; low-class person,
peasant, bastard’ (Neidorf 2016) < Gmc. *gadi-linga- ‘member of the extended
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).
family; cousin, nephew’, denominal to *gada- ‘organization, association’ (VGS 169,

NWG 575; cf. HGE 121f.; ignored in EDPG)
skilliggs* (m) ‘shilling, golden solidus, gold piece’ = ON skillingr ‘gold coin, aureus’,
OS sc(h)illing sum of money (12 pennies) or a count of twelve, OHG scillinc, scel-
linc, pl skillinka ‘aureos’ [gold pieces]; OF skilling, skilleng, pl skillinga(r); OE
scilling unminted money (fivepence in Wessex, fourpence in Mercia) and a
weight (ānes scillinges gewihte ‘in the weight of one scilling’). See Grienberger
(1900: 189). Gmc. *skillingaz, earlier *skellingaz, was a unit of money, usually
translated ‘shilling’ but the value differed according to time and place. The ety-
mology is perhaps *skeld-linga- from the same root [*skel(H)- ‘split’ LIV 552]
as *skeldu- ‘shield’ (Schröder 1918: 254ff., NWG 576, EDPG 442; cf. GED 312,
HGE 338)
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)
Because of stems that were ambiguously nominal or verbal, *-ar(i)ja- came to

derive agent nouns from verbs. The bridge was provided by examples like Goth. laisa-
reis ‘teacher’ = OHG lērari, Germ. Lehrer ‘teacher’, originally derived from *laisa =
OHG lēra ‘instruction’, but synchronically relatable to Goth. laisjan, Germ. lehren
‘teach’. Another example is Goth. liuþareis ‘singer, cantor’ = OHG liudari ‘singer’,
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.).
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
Primarily adjectival suffixes

8.27 -þs, -ds, -ts (adj -a-)
The alternants of this suffix go back to a deverbal resultative adjective *-tó-. It mostly
makes adjectives in Germanic, e.g. Goth. raihts* ‘straight, right’ (q.v. in App.). It makes
past participles in Latin and Sanskrit, rarely in Germanic, e.g. *sōhtaz (OE sōht >
sought), *wurhtaz (OE worht > wrought). Neither is attested in Gothic (pace LHE2 188;
see sokjan, waurkjan §5.15). Some adjectival formations follow (cf. Gallee 1882: 29–34).
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
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-dain 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.
gards (m -i-) ‘house; yard’ (q.v. in App.)

gulþ* (dat sg gulþa 1Tim 2:9A/B) (n -a-) ‘gold’ (q.v. in App.)
staþs* (dat sg staþa Lk 5:3, Mk 4:1) (m -a-) ‘coast, shore, land’ = Norw. dial. stad
‘bank’, OS stath, stad (m) ‘bank, shore, beach’, OHG stad (m, n) ‘id.’, OE stæð (n, 1x m)
‘bank, shore’ < Gmc. *staþa- ‘strand, beach’ < *sth́2-to-; cf. *sth2-tó- ‘stood’ in Lat.
status ‘stood, placed’, etc. (GED 323f., EWDS 353, VG 329, HGE 372, NWG 452,
EDL 590)
Norw. dial. kull, kuld (m, f) ‘litter (of progeny)’ = Dan. kuld ‘id.’ < Gmc. *kulda- < dial.
IE *gwlH-tó-; cf. Lith. gùltas ‘bed, lair’ (EDPG 309f.); cf. Goth. kilþei* (f -n-) ‘womb,
uterus’ (only dat [FT 37] or acc [Snædal] kilþein Lk 1:31, Bl 2v.7) < *kilþ-īn- (NWG
305f.), and also inkilþo (f -ōn-) [in-womb] ‘pregnant’, possibly derived from
*kilþ/d-, as in OE cild (n -a-) ‘child’ < *kelda- (n), with plural variants from *kild-iz-
< *keld-ez-, e.g. nom pl cild(e)ru ~ þā cild, gen pl cildra ~ cilda, etc. ‘children’ (VG
596–9; cf. §8.22)
ON broð (n -a-) ‘broth’ = OHG brod ‘id.’, OE broð ‘id.’ < Gmc. *bruþa- (n) ‘id.’
< IE *bhrú-to- (cf. Lat. dē-frutum ‘cooked grape juice; must’) beside *bhru-tó- in
Welsh brwd ‘hot’, etc. [*bherw- ‘boil’ LIV 81] (Kuryłowicz 1967: 447, VG 186f.,
HGE 59)
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.).
8.28 -ns (adj/m -a-), -n (n -a-)

Adjectives in -ns go back to PIE *-no-, widely attested as a nominal and adjectival
formative. For the short list of adjectives that follows (more in Gallee 1882: 21)
additional information can be found in the Appendix.
ains (num, str adj -a-) ‘one; a certain; alone’ (§4.25) = ON einn, etc.
fulls (adj -a-) ‘full’ = ON fullr, etc.
meins (poss adj, str -a-) ‘my’ = runic mīn-, etc.

seins* (poss refl, adj -a-) ‘one’s own’ (oblique cases only) = ON sinn, etc.
þeins ‘your’ = ON þinn / þín, etc.
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.
barn (n -a-) ‘infant; child’ = ON barn ‘id.’, etc.

(þruts)-fill ‘leprosy’ (§7.6) = OE (þrust)fell ‘id.’ (NCG 66), ON fjall, fell ‘skin’, OHG fel
‘skin, pelt’, OS, OE fel(l) ‘skin’ fell < Gmc. *fella- < *pel-no- (AHDR 63, HGE 97,
NWG 315, 327, EDL 455, EDPG 135, LHE2 165; cf. filleins §8.37 and Lat. pellis §8.13)
haurn (n -a-) ‘horn’ (acc Lk 1:69), ‘carob pod’ (gen pl haurne Lk 15:16) (Wolfe, forth-
coming) = runic horna, etc.
kaurn (acc) (n -a-) ‘grain, wheat’ = ON korn ‘corn, grain’, etc.; fruits are neuter
(Hüllhorst 1902)
razn (n -a-) ‘house’ = ON rann ‘large house’, etc.
rign (n -a-) ‘rain’ = ON regn, etc.
stains (m -a-) ‘stone’ = ON steinn, etc.
wepn* (n -a-) ‘weapon’ (only pl nom wepna 2Cor 10:4B, acc 2Cor 6:7A/B, dat
wepnam Jn 18:3) = ON vápn, etc.
Crim. vvaghen ‘wagon’ (§1.2) = ON vagn (m -a-) ‘wagon, vehicle, carriage’, etc.
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.
8.29 -ans, -ins (adj/m -a-)
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).
8.30 -eins (adj -a-)

Adjectives in -eins have two main functions: 1. material, 2. relation and appurtenance.
A few examples of each will suffice, followed by a short discussion of their history.
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).
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.)
Derivatives of relation and appurtenance
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
(1Cor 15:49A/B, Sk 4.4.4f.). There is no *himineins because heaven has no substance

(Meid 1994).
Germanic also has many adjectives of relation and appurtenance, e.g. Goth. ahmeins*
‘spiritual’ (ahma ‘spirit’), leikeins ‘bodily, corporeal, carnal, fleshly’ (leik ‘body, flesh’),
riqizeins* ‘dark(ened)’ (riqis ‘darkness, gloom’), sunjeins ‘true, truthful, genuine, fac-
tual’ (sunja ‘truth(fulness)’ < *h1s-n-yéh2- Snædal 2016), etc. (cf. Gallee 1882: 22f.).
At least ahmeins* and leikeins are neologisms (GGS 169), and the former is a semantic
rendering of Gk. pneumatikós (Velten 1930: 489). Another Christian semantic bor-
rowing was aiweins* ‘eternal’ (aiws* ‘age, eternity’), especially in the expression libains
aiweino (Rom 6:23A+) ‘life eternal’ (§3.8) = Gk. zō ai nios ‘id.’ (Velten 1930: 490).
Relational adjectives in -ein- go back to *-īna- from *-ih2-no- built on the old
formative marking belonging to a set that makes the genitive in Latin, e.g. OLat. Lat-ī
(> gen) / Lat-ī-no- > Latīnus ‘of Latium; Latin’ (Miller 1969; Balles 2008; LSDE
155f., w. lit).
8.31 -a/i/ug- (-a/i/uh-) (adj -a-)

The main function of this suffix is characterization. Examples that occur in several
Germanic languages follow (cf. Gallee 1882: 35–7).
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
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).
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.
8.32 -(a/u)ls (adj/m -a-), -l (n -a-)

Unenlarged -l- stem adjectives that are not deverbal or deradical are not plentiful in
Germanic. Their main function is characterizing. A few examples follow (Gallee 1882:
25–9; cf. KM 84; NWG 391).
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).
fugls* (m -a-) ‘bird, fowl’ = ON fogl, fugl, etc.

1.mel (n -a-) ‘(point in) time, period of time; season’ = ON mál ‘measure; time; meal’,
OHG māl ‘(point in) time; spot; meal’, OE mæl ‘measure; moment; meal’—despite
EDPG 362, the ‘measure’ word and the ‘time’ word are generally admitted to be the
same, going back to *meh1-lo- [*meh1- ‘measure’] (HGE 269, NWG 400)
sitls* (m -a-) ‘seat, chair; throne; (bird’s) nest, roost’ = OS *setal (n) (gen pl setla) ‘seat,
abode’, OHG sezzal ‘chair, seat, stool’, OE setl, seld (m/n) ‘seat; official seat; position;
abode, residence; siege’ < Gmc. *setla- ‘id.’, derived from *set(j)an- ‘sit’; cf. Gaul.
sedlon ‘seat’ (MUN 75, EWDS 760, HGE 326, NWG 395, EDPG 434)
stikls (m -a-) ‘pointed drinking horn; cusped beaker, chalice’ < Gmc. *stik-la-z;
with enlarged suffix *stik-ila- in ON stikill ‘pointed end of a horn’, OHG stehhal
‘goblet’, all derived from *sti/ekan- ‘to stick’ [*steig-] (GED 325, EWDS 795, HGE
378, NWG 396)
stols (m -a-) ‘seat, throne’ = ON stóll ‘stool, chair; throne; bishop’s see or residence’, OS
stōl ‘chair; three-legged stool; throne’, OHG stuol ‘chair, stool, throne’, OE stōl
‘chair, three-legged stool; seat (of one in authority)’ < Gmc. *stōla- ‘chair, seat’ < IE
*steh2-lo- [*steh2- ‘stand’] (GED 327, MUN 76, EWDS 804, HGE 379, NWG 396,
EDPG 481) or *steh2-tló-/-dhlo- (Kroonen 2017: 108)
tagl (acc) (n -a-) ‘(strand of human) hair’, pl nom tagla ‘hairs of the human head’
(Mt 10:30), dat taglam ‘(clothes of camel’s) hairs’ (Mk 1:6) = ON tagl ‘horse’s hair,
tail’, OHG zagal (m) ‘tail; sting; penis’, OE (m) tægl ‘tail’ < Gmc. *tag-la- (n) ‘hair’
8.33 -(i)la (m -n-), -(i)lo (f -n-) 375
< ?*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)
Indo-European had several kinds of *-l- formations (Benveniste 1935: 40ff.).

Thematized *-l- stems gave rise to oxytone adjectives in *-ló- (Wackernagel &
Debrunner 1954: 859ff.; Probert 2006: ch. 10), which developed a mobile accent in
Germanic, predicting variants with and without VL (Kiparsky 2010).
There were also nouns in *-l- and thematized *-ló-. For instance, the root *h2enk-
‘bend’ made a derivative *h2enk-ul-, whence thematized *h2enk-ul-ó- in ON ongull
(m) ‘(fish)hook, angle’, OS angul ‘(fish)hook’, OHG angul ‘fishingrod, hook, hinge’,
OE angel, angul, ongel ‘(fish-)rod/hook’ (> angle). The corresponding adjective is
attested in Gk. agkúlos ‘crooked’, etc. (AHDR 4, VG 339f., HGE 19, LIV 268, EDPG 28).
More abundant were the deradical/deverbal *-ló- adjectives, e.g. Gk. deilós ‘cow-
ardly’ (< *dwei-ló-), OCS bylŭ ‘been’ (byti ‘to be’), or *-o-lo-, as in Lat. bibulus ‘dis-
posed to drinking’ (bibere ‘to drink’), crēdulus ‘prone to believe or trust’ (crēdere ‘(en)
trust, believe’), etc. (LSDE 196f.). The closest formal and semantic equivalent to these
Latin formations occurs in Germanic derivatives like Goth. sakuls (1Tim 3:3A/B)
‘quarrelsome, contentious’, from the same root as sakan ‘dispute, rebuke’ [*seh2g- ‘seek
out’] (AHDR 72, HGE 314, LIV 520, NWG 395, LSDE 196, EDPG 423).
An alternation *-ila-, *-ala-, *-ula- (NWG 391f.) is supposedly parallel to *-ina-,
*-ana-, *-una- (Gallee 1882: 27ff.; Sütterlin 1887: 35–8; KM 50f.; Lühr 1988: 198f.; VG
269f.; Schaffner 2015: 175ff.). Many forms exhibit a suffixal alternation between -o-
grade and zero grade, e.g. Goth. slahals (1Tim 3:3B, Tit 1:7B) ~ slahuls (1Tim 3:3A)
‘(one) apt to strike; assailant; bully’ (cf. slahan* ‘strike, smite’ (NWG 402), q.v. in
App.); ON þagall ‘silent’ ~ þogull ‘habitually silent, taciturn’; cf. Goth. þahan* ‘be
quiet’ (q.v. in App.). Some forms can be accounted for by epenthesis in West Germanic
(Thöny 2013: 164).
8.33 -(i)la (m -n-), -(i)lo (f -n-)

Germanic inherited nominal and adjectival diminutives in *-(i)la-, and Gothic has
traces of diminutive adjectives. One iconic to its meaning is *lut(t)ila-z / *lītila-z ‘little’
(see leitils in App.). For the most part, however, in Gothic the diminutives were
extended to -n- stem nouns *-ilan-, *-ilōn-, in which the gender is inherited from the
base word:
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).
8.34 -isks (adj -a-), -iska (adj -o-)

This suffix has two main functions: appurtenance and ethnicity. Benveniste (1961:
36–40) includes additional functions. One involves the treatment of entities like
places and indicating source, e.g. Goth. haiþiwisks* ‘from the open field; wild’ (haiþi*
8.34 -isks (adj -a-), -iska (adj -o-) 377
‘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).
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
Verbal and sentential syntax
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.”
9.1 Syntactic introduction

In the version of the generative model adopted here sentences and phrases have the
hierarchical structure in (1). In Gothic, this will be most relevant for reflexivization. In
(1), XP is a phrase of any kind (VP, NP, etc.), including S(entence) and X (or X /X-
zero) its head (V, N, etc.). X’ (X-bar) represents an intermediate level.
1 Kapteijn (1911) is a lengthy treatise on divergences from the Greek text. See also Cuendet (1929),
Greiner (1992), Klein (1992a, b), Berard (1993a, b), Burton (1996b), Ferraresi (2005), Harbert (2007),
Goetting (2007), Pennington (2010), Kotin (2012: 317–74), Walkden (2012/2014), Katz (2016), Ratkus
(2011, 2016, 2017b, etc.), Falluomini (2018a). Curme (1911) is an uncritical but often interesting defense
of disputed Gothic constructions. Petersen (2016: 170, 2017: 178) prints Jared Klein’s p.c. criticism that
Burton’s approach (e.g. 1996b) amounts to finding a parallel for any Gothic construction in some obscure
Greek or Latin version and pretending that, if Gothic diverges from all, the Greek Vorlage must be lost.

380 Verbal and sentential syntax
(1) Hierarchical structure

XP
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
9.2 Subject pronouns and null subjects

Gothic belongs to a class of languages that can omit overt subject pronouns. Such
languages include Ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, and Spanish. These are generally
referred to as null subject languages, but there are many subvarieties, such as partial
null subject languages like Old English, and non-null subject languages like English,
where pronouns are obligatory (Miller 2010: i: 143ff., w. lit; Walkden 2012/2014).
Gothic was the most null-subject Germanic language (Schulze 1924a, Abraham
1991, Harbert 2007: 221f.). Matches with the Greek text are at most suggestive (Meillet
1908–9: 86–90), but most of the older Germanic languages omitted subject pronouns
in varying degrees. Walkden (2014: 195–226) attempts a Germanic reconstruction.
The subject pronouns in (4) are independent of the Greek versions with none.
(4) a) iþ eis tauh-un Iesu fram Kajafin (Jn 18:28)
but they led-3pl Jesus.acc.sg from Caiaphas
‘they led Jesus from Caiaphas’
b) iþ eis qeþ-un-uh du imma Judaieis (Jn 18:31)
but they said-3pl-cnj to him.dat.sg Jews.nom.pl.m
‘and theyx said to him, the Jewsx’ (i.e. ‘they, the Jews, said to him’)
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’
In Matthew, there is no statistical difference in the use of null or overt pronominal

subjects to express a referential pronoun (Walkden 2012: 174). The highest number
of referential null subjects is in the 3sg with 62 examples (93.9%), followed by 1pl
with 16 (88.9%), then 2pl with 46 (85.2%). The lowest figures obtain for the 2sg with
21 examples (72.4%). Of the 229 null referential subjects in Matthew, there is not one
instance of an overt pronoun in the Greek text (Walkden, p. 175).
When there is a difference between the Greek and Gothic text, it is generally
because Gothic has inserted an overt subject pronoun in a contrastive context involv-
ing change of subject (GrGS 181f.; Douse 1886: 230; Lenk 1910: 243; Ferraresi 2005: 42,
48f.; Walkden 2012: 174f.).
Even when the first person is ambiguous, the pronoun can be omitted, as in (6).
(6) naht jah dag in diupiþai was mareins (2Cor 11:25B)

night.acc.sg and day.acc.sg in deep was sea.gen.sg
‘a night and a day (I) was on the deep of the sea’
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.
9.3 Anaphoric structures

Only the third person has a morphologically distinct anaphor. The first person mik
‘me’, mein- ‘my’, second þuk ‘you’, þein- ‘your’, and the corresponding plural forms, are
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]]’
(11) faurbauþ im ei mannhun ni qeþeina bi

warned.3sg them that any.man neg tell.3pl.pret.opt about
ina/*sik (Mk 8:30)
him/*refl:acc.sg
‘(hex) charged themz that theyz not tell anyoneq about himx/*himselfx’
(12) so qino . . . witandei þatei warþ bi ija/*sik, qam (Mk 5:33)

D woman knowing.nom.sg.f what became by her/*refl came
‘the woman, (shex) knowing
[whatz [tz occurred with respect to herx/*herselfx]], came’
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).
(13) jabai ƕas wili afar mis gaggan, afaikai sik

if indf will.3sg after me.dat go.inf deny.3sg.opt refl
silban (Lk 9:23)
self.acc.sg
‘if anyone is willing to come after me, let him deny himself ’
(14) jah ni haband waurtins in sis, ak ƕeilaƕairbai sind (Mk 4:17)

and neg have.3pl roots in refl:dat but transitory be.3pl
‘and (they) do not have roots in themselves, but rather are ephemeral’
(15) jū ga-horinoda izai in hairtin seinamma (Mt 5:28)

already prfx-adultered her.dat in heart poss.refl:dat.sg.n
‘(he) has already committed adultery with her in his (own) heart’
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’)
Examples of all of the uses of reflexivization in Gothic can be found in Rousseau

(2016: 305–29). Klimov (1983: ch. 2) presents a different classification.
9.4 Reflexives with silba
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’
(18) silbo auk airþa akran bairiþ (Mk 4:28)

self.nom.sg.f for earth.nom.sg.f fruit.acc.sg.n bear.3sg
‘all by itself the earth bears fruit’
In (18), silbo translates Gk. automátē ‘sua sponte’.

9.4 Reflexives with silba 385
Intensifying silba precedes a noun or pronoun if present. Exceptions: (i) a clitic

intervenes, as in (18); (ii) an appositional item is present, e.g. ik silba Pawlus (2Cor 10:1B)
‘I myself, Paul’; (iii) with þata one finds silbo þata (2Cor 7:11A/B) ‘this very/same thing’
beside þata silbo (2Cor 2:1, 2:3A/B, Gal 2:10B) ‘id.’; (iv) weis silbans (2Thess 1:4A/B)
‘we ourselves’ but silbans jūs (1Thes 4:9B) ‘you yourselves’.
By contrast, reflexive mik silban ‘myself ’, þuk silban ‘yourself ’, sik silban ‘himself ’
are invariant, as are dat mis silbin, þus silbin, sis silbin, gen sein- silbins (see below),
pl acc uns(is) silbans, izwis silbans (but silbans izwis 2Cor 13:5A/B), sik silbans, dat
uns (*unsis) silbam, izwis silbam, sis silbam, acc n sik silbo (Rom 14:14C). This
linearization may involve covert adjunction (but see Reuland 2008: 535ff.).
For examples of reflexives with a form of silba, cf. nasei þuk silban (Mk 15:30) ‘save
yourself ’ and the following (GrGS 185f.):
(19) Saei seina qen frijoþ, [jah] sik silban frijoþ (Eph 5:28A)
who poss.refl woman loves and refl self loves
‘he who loves his (own) wife, (he) [also] loves himself ’
(20) Jabai ƕas ga-trauaiþ sik silban Xristaus wisan,

if indf prfx-trust.3sg refl self Christ.gen.sg be.inf
þata þagkjai aftra af sis
D.acc.sg.n contemplate.3sg.opt again from refl:dat
silbin . . . (2Cor 10:7B)
self.dat.sg
‘if anyone confides him/herself to be of Christ, let him/her reflect on this again to
him/herself ’
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 ’.
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’
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).
9.5 Binding and intervening variables
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
(25) Iesus . . . fairgreipands barn ga-satida faura sis (Lk 9:47)

Jesus taking child prfx-set before refl.dat
‘Jesusx, taking a childz, set (himz) in front of himx’ (§6.11)
(26) gamunda Paitrus waurdis Iesuis qiþanis du sis (Mt 26:75/C)

remembered P.nom word.gen J.gen spoken.gen.sg.n to refl.dat
Peterx remembered Jesus’y wordz (that was) spokenz to himx’
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’
The Greek and Latin versions have a pronoun.

The exception to the generalization that an intervening D/NP does not block binding
with the matrix subject occurs with inchoative quasi-reflexives (§§9.8f.). The contrastive
pair in (30) is instructive.
(30) a) gasaiƕandei Paitru warmjandan sik . . . qaþ

seeing.nom.sg.f Peter.acc.sg.m warming.acc.sg.m refl said.3sg
‘(shex) seeing Peterz warmingz (himselfz) up, said’ (Mk 14:67)
b) frawaurhtans þans frijondans sik frijond
sinners.nom.pl.m D.acc.pl.m loving.acc.pl.m refl love.3pl
‘sinnersx love thosez (whoz) love themx’ (Lk 6:32)
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.
9.6 The binding of sein-
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’
Roughly parallel to an anaphor in a PP is an anaphor in a peripheral noun phrase,

such as the dative of interest broþr seinamma in (34).
(34) Moses gamelida unsis þatei jabai ƕis broþar gadauþnai jah bileiþai qenai,
‘Moses wrote to us that if someone’sy brotherz die and leave behind a wife,
jah barne ni bileiþai, ei nimai broþar is þo qen is
and leave no children, that hisz brothery should take hisz wife,
jah us-satjai barna broþr seinamma (Mk 12:19)
and raise up children for hisy brotherz’
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’
(36) swa jah wairos skulun frijon seinos

so and men.nom.pl should.3pl love.inf poss.refl:acc.pl.f
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).
qenins swe leika seina (Eph 5:28A)

wife.acc.pl.f as body.acc.pl.n poss.refl:acc.pl.n
‘even so husbands should love their wives as (they love) their own bodies’
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.
9.7 Apparent exceptions to sein- binding
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
(39) wairþs auk ist waurstwja mizdons seinaizos (Lk 10:7)

worthy for is worker wage.gen.sg.f poss.refl:gen.sg.f
‘for the laborer is worthy of his compensation’
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), seinis 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),
seinis anaphoric to an actor DP within the PP that contains it.
(43) þuei Israel | us faraoni jah wairam se[in]am

you.who Israel from pharaoh and men
ganasides · (Bl 1v.10f.)
save.2sg.pret
youx whox saved Israely [from pharaohz and hisz men]’
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’]
(45) wairþaid – uh miþ izwis misso seljai,

become.2pl.opt–and with you.dat.pl recip kind.nom.pl.m
armahairtai, fragibandans izwis
compassionate.nom.pl.m forgiving.nom.pl.m you.dat.pl
misso (Eph 4:32A/B)
recip
‘and strive to be kind with one another, compassionate, forgiving one another’
(46) ni wairþaima flautai, uns misso ushaitandans

neg become.1pl.opt conceited.nom.pl.m us.acc recip provoking.nom.sg.m
misso in neiþa wisandans (Gal 5:26A/B)
recip in envy.dat being.nom.pl.m
‘let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another’
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’)
(49) timrjaiþ ainƕarjizuh anþar anþarana (1Thess 5:11B)

build.2pl.opt each&every.nom.sg one.nom.sg.m other.acc.sg.m
‘you should—each and every one (of you)—edify one another’
9.9 Pseudo-reflexives and passive replacements

Gothic was in the process of replacing the IE mediopassive forms with nonargument
reflexive formations (Ferraresi 2005: 109–23). These can be detransitivizations
(Klimov 1990a), passive substitutes (§5.28) but still agentive and therefore not identi-
cal to the nonagentive -nan verbs (§§5.14, 5.19), middle, or anticausative (§9.10).
In (50) gawasida sik translates the Greek middle periebáleto ‘dressed’ (lit. ‘put
around [himself]’) (cf. Guxman 1964: 52).
(50) nih Saulaumon in allamma wulþau seinamma
not.and S. in all.dat.sg.m glory.dat.sg poss.refl:dat.sg.m
gawasida sik swe ains þize (Mt 6:29)
dressed.3sg refl as one.nom.sg.m D.gen.pl.m
‘not even Solomon in all his glory dressed like one of those’
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’
Generally speaking, for twenty-eight verbs a simple reflexive translates a Greek

mediopassive (Ferraresi 2005: 89f.; Harbert 2007: 209). Middle infinitives are ren-
dered with more variation (Greiner 1992).
The simple reflexive was native Gothic. In (52) it translates the Greek intransitive
hupéstrepsen ‘returned’; compare the (pre-)Vulgate deponent reversa est ‘id.’ (cf. Rose
1976: 48; Klimov 1983: 18f.; García García 2005: 152).
(52) jah ga-wandida sik du garda seinamma (Lk 1:56)

and prfx-turn.pret.3sg refl to house.dat.sg.m poss.refl:dat.sg.m
‘and [Maria] returned to her own home’
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)’
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.).
9.11 Lexical and grammatical aspect

Lexical aspect is traditionally called Aktionsart, which is not the same as grammatical
aspect, or just aspect. The terminology has not been fixed, there have been different
theoretical approaches, and confusion is rampant (see the overview in Filip 2011).
Lexical aspect is not immutable. Timberlake mentions, for instance, that painted a
picture is liminal, designating a completed process, but painted one picture for seventy
years forces a continuous process interpretation. Grammatical aspect can similarly
alter lexical aspect. For instance, see reports a momentary state, as in I see a dog, but
with progressive aspect, I am seeing spots everywhere, a process interpretation is forced
(Timberlake 2007: 286, w. lit). The progressive interacts naturally with processes, but
with a stative predicate imparts a sense of activity (ibid. 287).
The typology of core crosslinguistic operators in Table 9.1 is from Timberlake
(2007: 284–304).
Table 9.1 Lexical and Grammatical Aspect
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
Liminal Bounded or telic situations that change in a discontinuous and irreversible

manner, with three phases: initial in which a property does not hold,
transition during which the property changes and comes to hold, and final in
which the change ceases but the property is expected to hold, e.g. come, go,
leave, arrive (vs. run, walk, swim).
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.
Progressive Process ongoing at contextual occasion and projected to continue in the

immediate 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.
Iterative State consisting of subevents alternating in polarity over the contextual

occasion in a pattern projected to continue.
Aspect in Germanic was effected by prefixes, in English by particles. With Goth.

usfulljan and Germ. austrinken contrast completive fill up and telic drink up.7
9.12 Verbal prefixes in Gothic

Not all Gothic verbal prefixes are relevant to either lexical or grammatical aspect.
Streitberg (1891) admitted many exceptions and inconsistencies to his contrast
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.
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 gawas 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 gawas 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’
9.13 Telicity and other properties of ga-
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).
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’.
9.14 Syntactic and discourse functions of ga-
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.
Sequence completion or effectuation

Ga- has been claimed to mark the completion of a sequence or emphasize effectuation,
as in (65) (Scherer 1964: esp. 229ff.; Josephson 1976: 157; West 1982: 147).
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).
(65) a) weihaida ist qens so ungalaubjandei in

sanctify.PPP.nom.sg.f is wife D.nom.sg.f unbelieving in
abin, jah ga-weihaids ist aba
husband and prfx-sanctify.PPP.nom.sg.m is husband
‘the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband, (1Cor 7:14A)
and the (unbelieving) husband is sanctified (in the wife)’
b) swa rinnaiþ, ei ga-rinnaiþ (1Cor 9:24A)
so run.2pl.opt comp prfx-run.2pl.opt
‘run so that you win the race’ [lit. run to completion; possibly lexical]
Change of state (Bernhardt 1870a: 159f.; Streitberg 1891: 84)

(66) a) leitil nauh jah ni saiƕiþ mik jah aftra leitil jah
little yet and neg see.2pl me and again little and
ga-saiƕiþ mik (Jn 16:16)
prfx-see.2pl me
‘a little (while) and you (will) no longer be seeing me,
and again a little while, and you will catch sight of me’
b) gablindida ize augona jah gadaubida ize hairtona (Jn 12:40)
‘he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts’
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

The so-called present participle (PrP) (§3.13) is in reality incompletive. It can be
attributive, predicative, appositional, agentive, or absolute. Since most Gothic PrPs
translate a Greek participle (Metlen 1932), they have been assumed to be calques.
Bennett (1959b) argues that the main function of the PrP in Skeireins is background
information and clarifications. For Lühr (2012), these constitute native usage.12
At least partly as a Greek calque (Mossé 1956: 186), agentive participles can take a
complement in whatever case the verb is associated with (cf. Streitberg 1920: 214;
Harbert 2007: 341); cf. the accusative with sa galewjands ‘the betrayer’ in (69).
(69) Iūdās sa galewjands ina (Jn 18:2)
‘Judas, the one betraying him’
[= Gk. Ioúdās ho paradidoùs autòn ‘id.’]
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’.
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]
In (71b), simple reflexive warmjands sik translates a Greek middle thermainómenos

(cf. §9.10). The past durative occurs several times in Skeireins, e.g. wasuh . . . anafil-
hands (3.2.17ff.) ‘and was recommending’ (Lenk 1910: 257).13
Harbert (2007: 293) observes that was | kunnands (Sk 1.2.12f.) ‘was knowing’ does
not work in English because stative predicates are not at home with the progressive.
Bennett (1960: 52) translates it ‘was aware’.
Another calque of Hebrew origin (Piras 2009: 167f.) but possibly introduced from
Latin involves a PrP conjoined by ‘and’ to a finite verb, as in (72).
(72) habands winþiskauron in handau seinai jah gahraineiþ (Lk 3:17)
having winnow-fan in hand poss.refl and cleanse.3sg
‘having a winnowing fan in his hand and he will cleanse’
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).
9.16 Other PrP structures
In addition to the functions enumerated above, several other well-defined uses of the
PrP occur (see also §5.32).
Relative clause substitute

The PrP with a D-word is in partial competition with relative clauses (Gering 1874:
313, 317, 319f.; cf. §3.13). The participle remains verbal in its transitivity and the con-
struction is often preceded by a pronoun indexed with its null subject. For the alterna-
tion between the participial construction and a relative clause, see the following pairs:
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
(73) a) ƕazuh sa . . . hausjands waurda meina (Lk 6:47)

‘each one hearing my words’
b) ƕazuh saei hauseiþ waurda meina (Mt 7:26)
‘each one who hears my words’
(74) a) sa mik andnimands (Mt 10:40)

‘the one welcoming me’
b) saei mik andnimiþ (Mk 9:37, Lk 9:48, Jn 13:20)
‘he who welcomes me’.
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’
Complement to perception predicates (Mossé 1956: 186)

(76) ga-saiƕ-iþ wulf qimand-an (Jn 10:12)
prfx-see-3sg wolf.acc.sg coming-acc.sg.m
‘(he) observes the wolf coming’
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)
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).
Postverbal manner adverbial

A PrP of a manner of movement verb (run, walk, . . . ) modifying the subject in post-
verbal position is a manner adverbial (cf. Eng. come running, Germ. komm eilend
Meyer 1884: 541),14 always processual, even rendering a Greek aorist participle (Katz
2016: 159):
(79) jah qemun sniumjandans (Lk 2:16)
‘and they came hurrying’
[Gk. kaì ẽlthon speúsantes ‘and they came, having hurried’]
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
9.17 Absolute constructions
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’
(82) nauh-þan-uh imma rodjandin qem-un fram

still-then-and he.dat.sg.m speaking.dat.sg.m came-3pl from
þamma swnagogafada (Mk 5:35)
D.dat.sg.m synagogue.head:dat.sg.m
‘and (with) him still speaking, they came from the synagogue director’
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).
(83) waurþans dags gatils, þan Herodis . . . |

(be)come.PP.nom.sg.m day.nom.sg opportune.nom.sg.m when Herod.nom
jah atgaggandein inn dauhtar Herodiadins . . . qaþ
and coming.acc.sg.f in daughter.acc.sg Herodias.gen say.3sg.pret
þiudans du þizai maujai (Mk 6:21f.)
king.nom.sg to D.dat.sg.f girl.dat.sg
‘the opportune day having come, when Herod (gave a feast) . . .
and (with) the daughter of Herodias coming in . . .
the king said to the girl’
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.
9.18 Historical status of the absolute structures

The dative absolute is common in Old English and Old High German. The Old Saxon
Heliand lacks absolute constructions. More often, an absolute is rendered differently,
16 But note dat abs inngaggandin imma in suma haimo (Lk 17:12) ‘him going into one of the villages’
beside acc abs inngaggandan ina in skip (Mk 5:18) ‘him going onto the ship’ (Werth 1965: 91). While the
first is consistent with the aspect of the Greek PrP in eiserkhoménou autoũ ‘him entering’, the second is
inconsistent with the aspect of the aorist participle in embántos autoũ ‘as he embarked’. However, this
example continues with baþ ina ‘besought him’, and the participial clause may be appositional to ina
(Metlen 1938: 643, w. lit; cf. GrGS 182). If so, the PrP is explained by the tense of the finite verb (§5.32).
9.19 Infinitives 409
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’
This is incorrect because syntactically an appositional is different from an absolute

(cf. Durante 1969: 153, 155; Hens 1995: 153; He & Yang 2015). First, a subject pronoun
with a PrP is appositional in Gothic. Second, an absolute construction is a clause
whose obligatory overt subject and predicate component have no source of case
because there is no NP in the matrix clause with which it can be indexed (He & Yang
2015: ch. 2; cf. Metlen 1938: 633; Harbert 1978: 266–70).
Most clauses do not need case, but since the subject and participle of Gothic abso-
lutes bear case, they are like their Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit counterparts (Keydana
1997; Miller 2002: 310–14). Without agreement and epistemic modality (Aygen 2002),
nominative case is not licensed except in languages in which nominative is a default
case. Rather, the nonfinite head licenses a form of nonstructural case to be valued on
all case-valuing heads in the absolute clause. The specific case generally has independ-
ent functions to express temporality or attendant circumstances.
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).
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’
(88) ik ni im wairþs and-bindan skaudaraip skohis is (Lk 3:16)

I neg am worthy un-bind.inf latchet shoe.gen his
‘I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal’
(89) l(a)iwane | . . . manwjane du fraslindan (Bl 1v.15f.)

lion.gen.pl ready.gen.pl.m?.wk to devour.inf
‘of lions ready to devour (him)’ (§10.11)
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
9.20 Infinitives with modal verbs
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)
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
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.
9.21 Subject control
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).
(104) Necessity
land bauhta jah þarf galeiþan jah saiƕan þata (Lk 14:18)
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).
9.22 Object control
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.
9.23 Infinitival purposives
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’
(114) ni qam gatairan ak usfulljan (Mt 5:17)

neg came.1sg abolish.inf but fulfill.inf
‘I did not come to abolish but to fulfull’
(115) ina galeiþandan <galeiþan> in skip ga-sitan (Mk 4:1)

him.acc.sg going.acc.sg.m on ship prfx-sit.inf
‘as he embarked on the ship to take a seat’ (§10.5)
(116) wlaitoda saiƕan þo þata taujandein (Mk 5:32)

looked.around.3sg see.inf D.acc.sg.f D.acc.sg.n doing.acc.sg.f
‘he looked around to see the woman who had done this’
In (117) the matrix object controls the infinitival subject.

(117) jah insandida skalk seinana . . . qiþan
and sent.3sg slave.acc.sg poss.refl:acc.sg.m say.inf
þaim haitanam (Lk 14:17)
those.dat.pl.m called.dat.pl.m
‘and he sent his slave to tell the invitees’
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’
9.24 Purposives with du

Nonnegated infinitival purposives whose subject is coindexed with a matrix constituent
(Ehrenfellner 1998: 235; Melazzo 2004: 364f.) are introduced by du ‘to’, characteristic
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?!’
In (123), du (though listed by Snædal as a P + dat) is separated from the infinitive

(Grewolds 1932: 19), a construction otherwise confined to the Epistles (§1.8).
(123) gadob wistai | du garehsn dau|peinais andni|man (Sk 2.3.24–2.4.2)
fitting nature.dat to plan.acc baptism.gen receive.inf
‘it befit nature to receive the plan of baptism’
9.25 Nominal properties of the Gothic infinitive
It is not uncommon for du with an infinitive to have the properties of an English

gerundial. In (124), the du clause is dependent on a noun.
(124) ei insandidedi ins merjan | jah haban waldufni
that send. 3sg.pret.opt them preach.inf and have.inf power
du hailjan sauhtins jah us-wairpan unhulþons

to heal sickness.acc.pl and out-cast.inf she.devil:acc.pl
‘that he send them to preach and to have the power (Mk 3:14f.)
of/for healing sicknesses and (for) casting out she-devils’
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
A D-word is licensed when an adverb or PP precedes a noun (§3.5). However, þata

can accompany an infinitive without intervening material, du does not entail þata,
and infinitives in subject position do not require du or þata (cf. Berard 1993a: 52; 1995):
(127) waila wisan jah faginon skuld was (Lk 15:32)
well be.inf and rejoice.inf obliged.n was
‘to be well and rejoice was proper’
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’
In (129), as shown by similar passages with a finite subordinate clause (Harbert

1978: 244ff.), ulbandau is a matrix dative in contrast to the accusative subject of
the infinitive (cf. Berard 1993b: 117) in Gk. kámēlon and Lat. camēlum in most MSS
(VL 1970: 93).
(129) azitizo ist ulbandau þairh þairko neþlos galeiþan
‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle’ (Mk 10:25)
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).
9.26 Accusative and participle or adjective

Two constructions must be distinguished because—of (130) and (131)—only (130) is a
small clause (SC) object clause, on which see §4.53.
(130) bigat unhulþon us-gaggana (Mk 7:30)

found.3sg demon.acc.sg.f out-gone.acc.sg.m [on the gender
‘he found (that) the demon (had) departed’ mismatch see §4.3]
(131) bigat lamb mein þata fralusano (Lk 15:6)
found.1sg sheep.acc.sg.n my.acc.sg.n D.acc.sg.n lost.acc.sg.n.wk
‘I found my sheep, the one (that was) lost’
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’
(134) hausjam auk sumans ƕairbandans (2Thess 3:11A/B)

hear.1pl for some.acc.pl.m circulating.acc.pl.m
‘for we hear that some go around disorderly’
(135) ni wiljau izwis unwitans (1Cor 10:1A)

neg want.1sg you.acc.pl unknowing.acc.pl.m
‘I don’t want you unaware’
[for unwitans there is an inf in Gk. agnoeĩn, Lat. ignōrāre ‘be ignorant’]
(136) ƕa mik qiþis þiuþeigana (Mk 10:18, Lk 18:19)

why me say.2sg good.acc.sg.m
‘why do you call me good?’
9.27 Accusative and infinitive 421
(137) jūzei in witoda garaihtans qiþiþ izwis (Gal 5:4B)

‘you who assert yourselves righteous in the law’
(i.e. ‘you who claim to be justified by the law’)
(138) kunnands ina wair garaihtana jah weihana (Mk 6:20)

‘knowing him a man righteous and holy’
Gamunan ‘remember’ takes genitive complements (§4.29), but note (139).

(139) gamuneis Xristu Iesu urrisanana us dauþaim
remember.2sg Christ.acc Iesus.acc risen.acc.sg.m from dead.dat.pl
‘remember that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead’ (2Tim 2:8B)
For examples with verbs of the make/cause class see §§4.53, 9.29 (end), and
cf. Bernhardt (1885: 77f.).
These small clauses were earlier described as ‘copula deletion’ (GrGS 205; Harbert
1978: 210f.) and ‘exceptional’ (Berard 1993a: 58, 61f., 239f.). For the latter, the analogy
is Exceptional Case Marking in English (I believe them to be good), which is contin-
gent on a particular analysis in which the NP subject of the SC (or infinitive)
supposedly should not get case from the matrix verb. This SC structure was inherited
from Indo-European and was frequent in the early languages (§9.31).
9.27 Accusative and infinitive

Accusative and infinitive (AI) is a construction in which the subject of the infinitive
gets case from the higher verb but is not one of its arguments. For instance, I believe
them to be wise does not entail that I believe them. What is believed is the impression
that they are wise.
Not every surface accusative and infinitive is genuine AI. As noted by Grimm (1837:
113ff.), some instances represent a matrix object that controls the infinitival subject:
(140) jabai nu ga–saiƕiþ sunu mans ussteigan (Jn 6:62)
if now prfx-see.2pl son.acc.sg man.gen.sg ascend.inf
‘if then you see the son of man ascend’
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.
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’
(143) anabiuda . . . | . . . aban qen ni fraletan (1Cor 7:10f.A)

command.1sg husband.acc.sg wife.acc.sg neg leave.inf
‘I command that a husband not divorce his wife’
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).
9.28 AI and verbs of volition
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’]
The shift from intransitive infinitive to a transitive passive construction is somewhat

surprising.22 There are other ways Gothic could have compensated for the lack of a
morphologically passive infinitive (Gk. propemphthẽnai, Lat. dēdūcī), such as a shift to
a finite passive structure.
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)
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
(153) rahnjan* ‘reckon’

þatuh rahnida in Xristaus sleiþa wisan
that.acc.sg.n count.1sg.pret sake Christ.gen loss.acc.sg be.inf
‘that I considered to be a loss on account of Christ’ (Phil 3:7A/B)
(154) taiknjan* ‘indicate, show, represent’, us-taiknjan ‘demonstrate’
a) taiknjandans sik garaihtans wisan (Lk 20:20)
‘representing themselves (i.e. pretending) to be righteous’
b) ustaiknideduþ izwis hlūtrans wisan þamma toja (2Cor 7:11A/B)
‘you showed yourselves to be guiltless in this matter’
(155) ga-trauan* ‘(en)trust, confide’ [Apelt (1874: 286) suggests Latin influence.]
jabai ƕas ga-trauaiþ sik silban Xristaus wisan (2Cor 10:7B)
if indf prfx-trust.3sg refl self Christ.gen be.inf
‘if anyone confides himself to be of Christ’
(156) wenjan* ‘hope’ (otherwise with subject control or an ei- clause)

wenja mik ƕo ƕeilo saljan at izwis (1Cor 16:7B)
hope.1sg I.acc indf:acc.sg.f while.gen.pl.f stay.inf at you.dat.pl
‘I hope to stay with you for a while’
[Gk. elpízō . . . epimeĩnai ‘I hope to stay’, but Lat. spērō . . . mē . . . manēre
‘I hope myself to stay’; Apelt (1874: 285f.) suggests Latin influence.]
(157) 1.witan ‘know’
wissedun [[silban]] Xristu ina wisan (Lk 4:41)
know.3pl.pret self.acc Christ.acc.sg he.acc.sg be.inf
‘they knew him to be the Christ’
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’
(159) gatauja igqis wairþan nutans manne (Mk 1:17)

make.1sg you.acc.du become.inf catcher.acc.pl.m man.gen.pl
‘I will cause you two to become catchers of men’23
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).
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).
9.30 AI with qiþan
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?’
(161) ƕaiwa qiþand Xristu sunu Daweidis wisan (Lk 20:41)

how say.3pl Christ.acc.sg son.acc.sg David.gen.sg be.inf
‘why do they say Christ to be the son of David?’
(162) þai-ei qiþand usstass ni wisan (Mk 12:18,

nom.pl.m-rel say.3pl resurrection.acc.sg.f neg be.inf Lk 20:27)
‘they who declare resurrection not to exist’
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
9.31 Diachrony and synchrony of AI
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’,
25 Observe the contrasts in (i).

(i) Say with ECM (i-a) and with ECM under different forms of wh- movement (i-b/c)
a) *they say me to be good
b) who(m) do people say me to be?
c) *when did people say me to be X?
The difference in grammaticality accords with observations by Frajzyngier & Jasperson (1991) that
English (and, evidently, early Germanic) infinitives involve (potential) reality, which is largely incompat-
ible with verbs of saying that have to do with elements of speech rather than reality, hence the problem
with (i-a). (i-b) converges because wh- questions with who, what do not presuppose any truth value to
conflict with the fact that the truth of an infinitive cannot be questioned. Crucially, one cannot argue that
(i-b) converges because of licensing by asymmetrical c-command, as shown by (i-c), which crashes
because when presupposes truth value. Thanks to Zygmunt Frajzyngier for discussion of these topics.
26 Note however qeþun þei on wairþan (Jn 12:29) [they said thunder to get-to-be] ‘they said there was
thunder’ = Gk. brontēn gegonénai ‘id.’. Most pre-Vulgate MSS have a finite clause, but note AI tonitrum
factum esse ‘thunder was made, thunder occurred’ in cod. Brix. (VL 1963: 141).
27 To concretize, Latin, for instance, has types of AI that seem alien to Gothic and are ungrammatical
through the history of English. In (i), only (a) was unequivocally grammatical in Gothic and Old English,
and remains good in contemporary English.
(i) AI in Latin
a) crēdō eōs esse sapientēs
‘I believe them to be wise’
b) crēditum est eōs esse sapientēs
[*(it) was believed them to be wise], i.e. ‘it was believed that they were wise’
c) fuit rūmor eōs esse sapientēs
[*(there) was a rumor them to be wise]
d) eōs esse sapientēs decuit
[*them to be wise was fitting] ‘it was fitting that they be wise’
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]
A seemingly unmotivated example of AI is cited in (165).

(165) ƕa mik jah þans uta stojan (1Cor 5:12A)
what me.acc and D.acc.pl.m outside judge.inf
‘what business is it of mine to judge outsiders?’
́
[Gk. tí gár moi [dat] kaì toùs éxō krī nein? ‘id.’]
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
(166) a) azetizo ist himin jah airþa hindar-leiþan (Lk 16:17)

easier is heaven.acc and earth.acc beyond-go.inf
‘it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear’
b) jah warþ afslauþnan allans (Lk 4:36)29
and got-to-be get.astonished.inf all.acc.pl.m
‘and it came to pass that everyone became astonished’
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.
9.32 Finite subordination

Germanic had finite and nonfinite means of subordinating one clause to another. The
nonfinite structures include infinitives and participles (discussed above). The main
finite structures involve a finite complementizer (‘that’) and relative clauses.
Clauses can be linked with or without subordination. The switch between parataxis
and hypotaxis is notoriously independent of the Greek models (Schaaffs 1904;
Pennington 2010). Declarative verbs can introduce direct (quoted) speech rather than
indirect (Lindberg 2010: 259), with or without punctuation (Werth 1965: 53):
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.
(167) iþ is qaþ: þatei im. (Jn 9:9)

‘but he said: that I am (him)’
(168) jah qaþ du im sa aggilus ni ogeiþ (Lk 2:10)

and said.3sg to them D.nom.sg.m angel neg fear.2pl.opt
‘and the angel said to them “fear not” ’
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
9.33 Ei as a residual coordinating conjunction

Not all classifications of ei are the same as in Snædal, where the relative conjunction
(2.ei) occurs 6x (1 dupl) in contexts like the following: fram þamma daga ei anabauþ
mis (Neh 5:14) ‘from the day that he commanded me’. All other examples belong to the
finite conjunction (1.ei), including the particle between imperatives (Bernhardt 1877:
22; Klinghardt 1877: 153–6; Douse 1886: 245; denied by Longobardi 1980):
(171) a) saiƕiþ ei atsaiƕiþ izwis (Mk 8:15)
‘watch out, beware for yourselves’ (§4.33)
[Gk. horãte, blépete ‘id.’, Lat. vidēte et cavēte ‘see and beware’]
b) let, ei saiƕam (Mt 27:49, Mk 15:36)
‘let (be) [i.e. hold off, let him alone], let’s see’
[Gk. áphes [pl áphete in Mk], ídōmen ‘let (be), let us see’
(Schwyzer 1932: 140f.); Klinghardt (1877: 154) compares
conjunctive nu in OHG lâz nu gisehêmês ‘id.’)]
With verbs of motion, Gothic can translate a double imperative by an imperative

and an infinitive, as in (172).
(172) gagg þuk silban ataugjan gudjin (Mk 1:44)
go you.acc self.acc show.inf priest.dat
‘go to show yourself to the priest’
[Gk. húpage, seautòn deĩxon ‘go, show yourself ’, Lat. vade, ostende tē ‘id.’]
An equivalent Greek construction features a participle plus an imperative, for

which Gothic can conjoin the imperatives:
(173) gagg jah gaspillo (Lk 9:60)
‘go and proclaim’
[Gk. apelthōn diággelle ‘going proclaim’]
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’]
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).
9.34 Ei as a relativizing complementizer

The use of ei with a pronoun (especially the first and second person forms) or D-word
in relative structures is native Germanic, unmatched by anything in Greek or Latin
(cf. Harbert 2018).
For ei as a relativizing complementizer, cf. faur-þiz-ei (7x ~ faurþize 2x) [before
this that] ‘before’, the only temporal conjunction that invariably occurs with
the optative (Köhler 1872: 126; Burckhardt 1872: 21f.; Schirmer 1874: 47; Douse
9.34 Ei as a relativizing complementizer 433
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.
The plural by contrast is accompanied by a D-word except at Lk 8:13. The D can

have the subject case of izei, as in þai izei bimaitanai sind (Gal 6:13B ~ A ize) ‘those
who are circumcised’, or the case of the ‘antecedent’: (liugnapraufetum) þaim izei
qimand at izwis (Mt 7:15) ‘(false prophets) those who come to you’.
The parallel feminine sei (41x, 7 dupl) from si ‘she’ + comp ei is also indeclinable but
(if not an accidental gap) has only singular reference, e.g. baurg Daweidis sei haitada
Beþlahaim (Lk 2:4) ‘the city of David, which is called Bethlehem’, rūna sei gafulgina
was (Col 1:26A/B) ‘the mystery which was hidden’, qino in þizai baurg, sei was
frawaurhta (Lk 7:37) ‘a woman in the city, who was a sinner’. Sei can be epexegetical
(Eckardt 1875: 22ff.): sei us guda ist garaihtei (Phil 3:9A/B) ‘the righteousness which is
from God’ for Gk. tēn ek theoũ dikaiosúnēn [lit. the from God righteousness] (Kapteijn
1911: 282).
To conclude this section, Gothic has relative pronouns consisting of a D-word plus
complementizer ei and typologically rare first and second person relativized pronouns.
Izei and sei are residual subject relative complementizers with gender (but not num-
ber) agreement, also rare crosslinguistically vs. the subject agreement complementizers
in Early Modern Welsh (Willis 2007).32 Gothic also has relative complementizers for
indefinites in nonsubject relativization, and several relative adverbs and conjunctions.
9.35 Relative adverbials and temporal conjunctions
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’
For relative þad-ei (12x) ‘whither, wherever’, see (183).

(183) in all baurge jah stade þadei munaida
into all city.gen.pl and place.gen.pl whither intended.3sg
is gaggan (Lk 10:1)
he go.inf
‘into all the cities and places where he was to go’
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’
For þan in the same function, note (185).

(185) a) qimand dagos, þan gairneiþ . . . (Lk 17:22)
‘the days will come when you will desire . . .’
b) unte þan siuka, þan mahteigs im (2Cor 12:10A/B)
‘because when I am weak, then I am strong’
In (185b), the first þan is a relative complementizer, the second an adverb.

The relative particle þei (14x, 1 dupl: 1Cor 16:6A ~ B þe) is traditionally separated
from the complementizer þei (14x, 1 dupl) ‘that’. Harbert (2018) argues that þei is a
bare complementizer used with indefinite nonspecific pronominals in nonsubject
positions, e.g. þis ah (5x), 4 with a form of bid(j)an ‘ask’ (§3.20), 1 with qiþan:
þis ah þei qiþiþ (Mk 11:23) ‘whatever he says’. It also occurs after þata ah (Jn 15:7, 16),
þis aduh (Mk 6:10, 1Cor 16:6A, B þe) ‘wherever’, þis aruh (Mk 9:18, 14:9) ‘wher-
ever’, þis izuh (Mk 6:22) ‘whatsoever’ (gen), and þis ammeh (Lk 4:6) ‘to whomso-
ever’ (dat).
A nonspecific time is referenced in (186).

(186) und þata ƕeilos þei miþ im ist brūþfaþs (Mt 9:15)
up.to D.acc.sg.n time.gen comp with they.dat is bridegroom
‘up to that (point) of time that (i.e. as long as) the bridegroom is with them’
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’
(188) ƕadre sa skuli gaggan, þei weis ni bigitaima

whither D owe.3sg.opt go.inf comp we neg find.1pl.opt
ina (Jn 7:35)
him
‘where should this (man) go, that we can’t find him?’ (see skulan §5.24)
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.
9.36 Core relatives
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
sein ana staina (Mt 7:24)

his.acc.sg.n on stone.dat.sg
‘now whosoever hears my words and does them, I shall liken him
to the wise man who built his house on stone’
(190) bi þan–ei gameliþ ist (Lk 7:27, Bl 2r.9f.)

about acc.sg.m–rel written.nom.sg.n is
‘about whom it is/has been written’
(191) þo waurda þo-ei ik rodida izwis (Jn 6:63)

D words acc.pl.n-rel I speak.1sg.pret you.dat.pl
‘those words that I have spoken to you’
(192) wesun | sumai þai-ei habaidedun hiwi gagudeins (Bl 2v.14f.)

were.3pl some nom.pl.m-rel had.3pl form godliness.gen
‘there were some who had the form of Godliness’
(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 nonsubject positions, the antecedent can be included in the relative clause, as in

(194), a rare type which occurs only 3x in the Epistles (Kapteijn 1911: 301f.).
(194) und þan-ei dag galaiþ Nauel in arka (Lk 17:27)
up.to acc.sg.m-rel day.acc.sg went.3sg Noah in(to) ark
‘up to which day (i.e. up to the day when) Noah boarded the ark’
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’
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’
(198) bidei mik þisƕizuh þei wileis (Mk 6:22)

‘ask me [whatsoever [C þei [you want . . . ]]]’ (§3.20)
9.37 Mood in relative clauses
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)
(202) a) ƕazuh saei afletai qen, gibai izai afstassais

each who leave.opt wife give.opt her divorce.gen
bokos (Mt 5:31)
papers
‘anyone who would divorce his wife must give her a certificate of divorce’
b) ƕazuh saei afletiþ qen seina, . . . taujiþ þo
each who leave.3sg wife poss.ref make.3sg her
horinon (Mt 5:32)
commit.adultery.inf
‘anyone who divorces his wife . . . causes her to commit adultery’
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.
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.
9.38 Free relatives
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’
(205) du ustiuhan us þamm-ei habaiþ (2Cor 8:11B)

to complete.inf from dat.sg.n-rel have.2pl
‘to complete (it) from what you have’
[Gk. tò epitelésai ek toũ ékhein ‘the completion from the having’ artic inf §9.21]
(206) þamm-ei leitil fraletada, leitil frijod (Lk 7:47)

dat.sg.m-rel little forgive.3sg.pass little love.3sg
‘to whom little is forgiven, (he) loves little’
In (207), þammei is a referential dative to taujan ‘do’.

(207) ƕa nu wileiþ ei taujau þamm-ei
what now want.2pl comp do.1sg.opt dat.sg.m-rel
qiþiþ þiudan Iudaie (Mk 15:12)
call.2pl king.acc.sg Jew.gen.pl
‘what then do you want me to do with the one that you call king of the Jews?’
*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
(208) so qino . . . witandei þat–ei warþ bi ija, qam (Mk 5:33)

D woman knowing nom.sg.n–rel became by her came
‘the woman, knowing what happened to her, came’
(209) laisari, wileima ei þat–ei þuk bidjos,

teacher.voc want.2pl comp acc.sg.n–rel you.acc ask.1du
taujais uggkis (Mt 10:35)
do.2sg.opt we.dat.du
‘teacher, we want that what we two ask you, you should do for us two’
The nom/acc case ambiguity of neuters allows them to pattern simultaneously as

object of a P + acc and as subject of their own clause, as in (210).34
(210) ni ufar þat-ei gameliþ ist fraþjan (1Cor 4:6A)
neg over sg.n-rel written.nom.sg.n is think.inf
‘not to think beyond what (i.e. that which) is/has been written’
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].
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.).
9.39 Relatives and correlatives
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’
(214) þamma ni faginoþ ei þai ahmans izwis uf-hausjand:

D.dat.sg.n neg rejoice.2pl comp D spirits you.dat.pl up-hear.3pl
iþ faginod in þamm-ei namna izwara ga-melida
but rejoice in dat.sg.n-rel names your prfx-written
sind (Lk 10:20)
are
‘do not rejoice in this that the spirits heed you,
but rejoice in that your names are/have been recorded’
Faginoþ/d in (214), is listed by Snædal as indicative, but must be imperative or optative

(§9.57). The sentence is not causal (Pennington 2010: 447).
Þatei and þammei evolved from correlative structures of the type in (213, 214).35
Contrast the NP-adjoined relative in (215), a citation from Ps. 118:22 (Mühlau 1904: 12).
Dat þammei is specified by the verb uswairpan ‘to cast out’ (§4.45), and differs from
the Greek and Latin with accusative of the relative pronoun (Marold 1882: 47).
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
(215) stains þamm-ei us-waurpun þai timrjans (Mk 12:10)

stone dat.sg.m-rel out-cast.3pl.pret D.nom.pl.m builder.nom.pl
‘the stone which the builders threw out’
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)]
(219) sildaleikjandona ana þaim þo-ei

marveling.PrP.nom.pl.n on D.dat.pl.n nom.pl.n-rel
rodida wesun bi ina (Lk 2:33)
spoken.nom.pl.n be.3pl.pret about he.acc
‘marveling at those things that were said about him’
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).
(220) nu fagino in þaim-ei winna faur izwis (Col 1:24A/B)

now rejoice.1sg in dat.pl.n-rel suffer.1sg for you.dat.pl
‘now I rejoice in those things which I suffer for you’
(221) [u]s þiudom · in þaim-ei nu bauam (Bl 1r.2)

from nation.dat.pl.f in dat.pl.f-rel now dwell.1pl
‘from the nations in which we now dwell’
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?’
9.40 Simple and compound complementizers
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.
9.41 Complements of reflective verbs

Epistemic and declarative predicates select propositional complements which allow
predication of the truth or falsity of the complement, and do not assert or presuppose
anything about the embedded event. They select propositions with a time frame inde-
pendent of the matrix tense, but not necessarily distinct from it. That is, the comple-
ment clause can in principle be in any tense or mood, but in the case of Gothic, Greek
influence and other factors play a role (cf. Lindberg 2010).
Factive, epistemic (including pseudo-perception verbs), and declarative predicates
in many languages can be combined as reflective verbs (see Miller 2002, w. lit). These
normally take a complement clause with þatei (or ei) plus the indicative (cf. Rousseau
2012: 236f.):
(223) qaþ du imma þatei broþar þeins qam (Lk 15:27)
said to him comp brother your came
‘told him that your brother came’
(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’
(225) jah gafrehun þatei in garda ist (Mk 2:1)

and learned.3pl comp in house.dat.sg is
‘and they learned that he is in the house’
(226) gasaiƕands jah þatei in galaubeinai þeihan habaida (Sk 2.3.10ff.)

seeing.nom.sg also comp in faith.dat.sg thrive.inf had.3sg
‘and realizing also that he was (predestined) to progress in the faith’
(227) iþ Iesus wiss-uh þatei wildedun ina fraihnan (Jn 16:19)

yet Jesus knew-and comp wanted.3pl him question.inf
‘and yet Jesus knew that they wanted to question him’
(228) nu witum ei þu kant alla (Jn 16:30)

now know.1pl comp you know.2sg all.acc.pl.n
‘now we know that you know all things’
(229) galaubideduþ þatei ik fram guda ur-rann (Jn 16:27)

believed.2pl comp I from God.dat.sg out-ran.1sg
‘you believed that I stemmed from God’
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’
(231) ni froþun ƕa was, þat-ei rodida du im (Jn 10:6)

neg understood.3pl what was acc.sg.n said.3sg to they.dat
‘they did not understand what it was that he was saying to them’
(232) unte wait ƕamma galaubida (2Tim 1:12A/B)

because know.1sg who.dat.sg.m believe.1sg.pret
‘for I know whom I have believed’
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.
9.42 The dependent optative

Whether the optative occurs in a subordinate clause or not depends to some extent on
the semantics of the matrix verb. Verbs whose complements are factual or realizable
typically take the indicative. Verbs that do not allow a full range of independent tenses
(or moods) in the complement clause, or verbs whose complements are not realized,
are only potentially realized, or deal with possible worlds or alternate states of reality,
trigger a shift to the optative (Schirmer 1874: 9f.).37 The choice between indicative and
optative involves the “degree of potentiality for the proposition to be(come) true”
(Harbert 2007: 279). These functions for a nonindicative mood are typical in many
Indo-European and other languages. For parallels between Gothic and Lithuanian,
see Michelini (1984).
Volitional complements (to predicates of intention, attempting, and venturing) are
unrealized (inherently irrealis), and the time frame of the complement is at least partly
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?’
(234) wileis ei ni ogeis waldufni (Rom 13:3A/C)

want.2sg comp neg fear.2sg.opt power
‘do you want that you not fear authority?’
[Gk. théleis dè mē phobeĩsthai tē n exousíān
‘do you want to not fear power/authority?’]
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’
(236) og izwis, ibai sware arbaididedjau* <arbaidedidjau> (Gal 4:11A)

fear.1sg you.dat.pl lest in.vain work.1sg.pret.opt
‘I’m afraid for you that I have labored in vain’
Ibai also functions as a left-periphery interrogative word that anticipates a contrary

reply, ibai ni an affirmative reply (see ibai in App.). As such, it aligns with languages
like Latin in licensing an opposite polarity complementizer with predicates of fearing.
As noted above, this is a semantic property of the verb and has nothing to do with
original parataxis (pace Pinkster 2015: 623). In fact, this construction may be an
innovation in Gothic because it occurs only in the Epistles (Ferraresi 2005: 144). In
the Gospels ogan* ‘fear’ takes DP and infinitival complements.
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’
9.43 Verbs of inquiry, mood shift, and tense harmony
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’
(239) frah ina ga - u - ƕa - seƕi (Mk 8:23)

asked.3sg him prfx - Q - indf - see.3sg.pret.opt
‘he asked him whether he sees anything’
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
(240) þagkjandans bi ƕarjana qeþi (Jn 13:22)

deliberating.nom.pl.m about who.acc.sg.m speak.3sg.pret.opt
‘deliberating about whom he was speaking’
(241) þāhta sis ƕeleika wesi so goleins (Lk 1:29)

pondered refl.dat what.sort:nom.sg.f was.3sg.opt D greeting
‘she pondered to herself what kind of greeting this was’
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 . . . ’)
9.44 Mood shift with epistemic verbs
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’.
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’
The optative can be motivated by the theological interpretation of possibility or by an

analysis involving a second-hand report: ‘we heard that the law says that . . .’ (cf. Douse
1886: 249).
While know is semifactive in English, where its behavior is largely nonfactive
(Kiparsky & Kiparsky 1970: 147), Gothic witan behaves as a factive epistemic verb in
not triggering mood shift. Exceptions are dubitative, as in (246).
(246) ni wait ei ainnohun daupidedjau (1Cor 1:16A)
neg know.1sg comp anyone.acc.sg.m baptize.1sg.pret.opt
‘I don’t know that (whether) I baptized anyone (else)’
9.45 Mood shift with negation
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’
(248) ni galaubidedun . . . þatei is blinds wesi (Jn 9:18)

neg believe.3pl.pret comp he blind.nom.sg.m be.3sg.pret.opt
‘they did not believe . . . that he had been blind’
(249) ni im wairþs ei haitaidau sunus þeins (Lk 15:19)

neg be.1sg worthy comp call.1sg.opt.pass son your
‘I am not worthy to be called (lit. that I be called) your son’
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’
Faginoþ can be imperative or optative (§9.57).

Direct observations also override mood shift (cf. Moerkerken 1888: 48; Guxman
1958: 236), although (251a) is an exact translation, as is (251b) (Falluomini 2013b: 158);
cf. Vet. Lat. loquitur / dīcit ‘says’ beside rare subjunctive loquātur / dīcat (VL 1963: 176).
It is however not unusual, as (252) shows.
(251) a) ni wait ƕa qiþis (Mt 26:70C)
neg know.1sg what say.2sg
‘I do not know what you are talking about’
b) ni witum ƕa qiþiþ (Jn 16:18)
neg know.1pl what say.3sg
‘we do not know what he is saying’
(252) ni wituts* <wituþs> ƕis bidjats (Mk 10:38)

neg know.2du what.gen.sg ask.2du
‘you two do not know (of) what you two are asking’
9.46 Final purpose clauses

As noted in §§9.23f., an infinitive is preferred for purposives under identity of the
subject of the matrix and embedded clauses, but ei (ni) ‘that (not)’ can occur in the
absence of switch reference. Since clauses denoting a goal or purpose are inherently
unrealized, they license the optative with ei and several other complementizers, but
not þatei.38 Rare examples with the indicative are argued by Pennington (2010: 315,
381f.) to be result clauses.
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).
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)’
Sequence of tenses is obeyed. The purposive verb is nonpast optative in a primary

sequence (present or future time reference) but preterite optative in a secondary (past
time) sequence (Pennington 2010: 312–15). With the imperative nauþei in (253) and
the future interpretation of afslaham in (254), contrast the past time reference in
(255).
(254) afslaham ina, ei uns wairþai þata arbi (Lk 20:14)
kill.1pl him comp we.dat.pl become.3sg.opt D inheritance
‘we’ll kill him so that we will get the inheritance’
(255) garūni gatawidedun bi ina, ei imma usqemeina (Mk 3:6)

secret.counsel do.3pl.pret about him comp he.dat kill.3pl.pret.opt
‘they held a secret meeting about him, that they might kill him’
More complex is the following example:

(256) qaþ izwis, faurþizei waurþi, ei
say.1sg.pret you.dat.pl before get.to.be:3sg.pret.opt comp
biþe wairþai, galaubjaiþ (Jn 14:29)
when get.to.be:3sg.opt believe.2pl.opt
‘I told you (this), before it came to pass, in order that when it (eventually)
comes to pass, you will believe’
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
(258) in þizos manageins, ei ni þraiheina

due.to D.gen.sg.f crowd.gen comp neg press.3pl.pret. opt
ina (Mk 3:9)
him
‘on account of the multitude, lest they crowd him’ (for agreement see §4.3)
(259) eis ni iddjedun in praitoria, ei ni

they neg go.3pl.pret in praetorium comp neg
bisaulnodedeina ak matidedeina pasxa (Jn 18:28)
get.defiled:3pl.pret.opt but eat.3pl.pret.opt passover
‘they did not go into the praetorium, lest they get defiled,
but that they might eat the passover (supper)’
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’
A negative purposive is introduced by ibai ‘lest’ at Mt 5:25, 27:64; Mk 4:12; Lk 14:12,

29, 18:5 (Pennington 2010: 319ff., 369ff.); cf. (261).
(261) ibai ƕan atgibai þuk sa andastaua stauin (Mt 5:25)
lest ever deliver.3sg.opt you D opponent.at.law judge.dat.sg
‘(come to terms with your opponent at law . . . ) lest at some time
the opponent hand you over to the judge’
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’
The apparent violation of sequence of tenses is likely due to a present perfect

interpretation of atstaig ‘I have come down’ (Pennington 2010: 314).
While (263) possibly makes more sense as a result clause, a purposive seems to have
been intended and is introduced in Greek by hína mē ́ + sbj (Burckhardt 1872: 15).
(263) jabai bimait nimiþ manna in sabbato,

if circumcision.acc get.3sg man.nom.sg on sabbath
ei ni gatairaidau witoþ þata Mosezis (Jn 7:23)
comp neg break.3sg.opt.pass law D.nom.sg.n Moses.gen
‘if a man receives circumcision on the sabbath,
that the law of Moses is not broken’
To conclude this section, the optative is the norm with purpose clauses, most of
which are introduced by ei, negative ei ni.
9.47 Result (consecutive) clauses

Since results can be conceptualized as a realized outcome, indicative is the norm.
However, since clauses denoting a future consequence or result are inherently unreal-
ized, they should in principle also license the optative, even if no unequivocal examples
occur. Result clauses are included in this macrosection for the contrast with purpose
clauses, which were sometimes combined as final clauses.39
The Gothic Gospels contain 32 result clauses, introduced by swaswe (q.v. in App.)
15x, swe 4x, swaei 2x, ei 9x (Pennington 2010: 324–32, 398–409). Most correspond to
́ (+ ind or inf) ‘and so, (so) as, so that’. Pennington (p. 325) cites one poten-
Gk. hōste
tial occurrence of þei (Jn 7:35), but see §9.35.
Sample result clauses follow.
(264) wegos waltidedun in skip, swaswe ita jūþan
wave.nom.pl roll.3pl.pret in ship so.as it already
gafullnoda (Mk 4:37)
get.filled:3sg.pret
‘the waves were breaking into the boat, so that it was already filling up’
(265) gataujiþ astans mikilans, swaswe magun

uf skadau is fuglos himinis gabauan (Mk 4:32)
‘puts out great branches, so that the birds of heaven can dwell under its shade’
(266) gafullidedun ba þo skipa, swe sugqun (Lk 5:7)

‘they filled both boats, so (that) they sank’
(267) galuknoda himins . . . swe warþ hūhrus mikils (Lk 4:25)

‘heaven became closed up, so a great famine came about’
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’
(272) galiþun in haim Samareite swe manwjan imma (Lk 9:52)

‘they went into the village of the Samaritans so as to prepare for him’
́ ēn Samareitõn hōś te hetoimásai autõi ‘id.’]
[Gk. eisẽlthon eis kōm
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.
9.48 Conditional clauses

In expressions of contingency, a situation rather than an individual is responsible for
bringing about another situation. Explicit conditionals distinguish two situations: the
contingency, or protasis, and the consequence, or apodosis: “entertain the thought
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).
9.49 Conditionals with the indicative
In present general or particular conditionals, the protasis is introduced by jabai ‘if ’

and the negative by niba(i) ‘if not, unless’.
(273) 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]
(274) niba saei ga|bairada iupaþ|ro ni mag

unless rel/indf §3.27) bear.3sg.pass from.above neg can
ga-sai|ƕan þiudangard|ja gudis (Sk 2.1.21–5 = Jn 3:3)
prfx-see.inf kingdom God.gen.sg
‘unless someone is born from above, he cannot behold the kingdom of God’
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.
9.50 Hypothetical and counterfactual conditionals
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’
(278) jabai ƕas iggqis qiþai: duƕe þata taujats?

qiþaits: þatei frauja þis gairneiþ (Mk 11:3)
‘if anyone should say to you two, Why are you two doing this?,
you two should say that the lord needs it’
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’
(280) niba weseina, aiþþau qeþjau du izwis (Jn 14:2)

if.not be.3pl.pret.opt in.that.case say.3sg.pret.opt to you.dat.pl
‘if (these things) were not so, I would have told you’
(281) sa iþ wesi praufetus, ufkunþedi

D.nom.sg.m yet be.3sg.pret.opt prophet know.3sg.pret.opt
þau (Lk 7:39)
in.that.case
‘yet this man, were he a prophet, he would then know’
(282) nih wesi sa fram guda,

neg be.3sg.pret.opt D.nom.sg.m from God
ni mahtedi taujan ni waiht (Jn 9:33)
neg can.3sg.pret.opt do.inf neg thing
‘were he not from God, he could do nothing’
(283) nih qemjau jah rodidedjau du im,

neg come.1sg.pret.opt and speak.1sg.pret.opt to them
frawaurht ni habaidedeina (Jn 15:22)
sin neg have.3pl.pret.opt
‘had I not come and spoken to them, they would not have (the guilt of their) sin’
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).
9.51 Mixed conditionals
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’
(285) jabai ƕas wili afar mis gaggan, afaikai sik

if indf will.3sg after me.dat go.inf deny.3sg.opt refl
silban (Lk 9:23)
self.acc.sg
‘if anyone will come after me, let him deny himself ’
In (286), an indicative in the protasis affirming the presupposed factuality of the

hypothesis is followed by an imperative in the apodosis (Mourek 1892: 268).
(286) [jabai þiudans] Israelis ist, at – steigadau
if king Israel.gen is down-climb.3sg.impv [§5.1, ftn. 2]
nu af þamma galgin (Mt 27:42)
now off D.dat.sg.m cross.dat.sg.m
‘if he is (in fact) the king of Israel, let him climb down now from that cross’
[Gk. ei basileùs Israēĺ estin, katabátō nũn apò toũ stauroũ ‘id.’]
9.52 Obligatory optative 459
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).
9.52 Obligatory optative

The optative is obligatory in reported commands, requests, clauses of caution, warn-
ings, and the like, and in speech containing a supposed rationale or someone else’s
implied reason (Köhler 1872: 114ff.; Schirmer 1874: 42; Moerkerken 1888: 47f.;
Pennington 2010: 323f.). This construction is similar in part to (negative) purpose
clauses and requires sequence of tenses.
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 ’
(290) faurbauþ im ei mannhun ni qeþeina bi ina

warned.3sg them comp any.man neg tell.3pl.pret.opt about him
‘he warned them that they not tell anyone about him’ (Mk 8:30)
(291) anabauþ im ei mann ni qeþeina (Mk 7:36)
command.3sg.pret they.dat comp man.dat neg tell.3pl.pret.opt
‘he (Jesus) commanded them to tell (lit. that they told) no one’
(292) saiƕats ei manna ni witi (Mt 9:30)

see.2du comp man.nom.sg.m neg know.3sg.opt
‘see to it you two that no one knows (about this)’
(293) qaþ siponjam þeinaim ei us-dreibeina ina

said.1sg disciple.dat.pl your comp out-drive.3pl.pret.opt him
‘I told your disciples to drive him (the evil spirit) out’ (Mk 9:18)
(294) baþ siponjans þeinans ei us-dribeina imma
begged.1sg disciple.acc.pl your comp out-drive.3pl.pret.opt he.dat
‘I implored your disciples to drive him (the evil spirit) out’ (Lk 9:40)
(295) sa frawrohiþs warþ du imma ei distahidedi aigin is
he accused was to him comp waste.3sg.pret.opt estate his
‘he (the steward) was accused to him (the master) [for the alleged (Lk 16:1)
reason] that he (the steward) was squandering his (the master’s) resources’
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’
(297) sa–u ist sunus izwar, þanei jūs qiþiþ

D.nom.sg.m–Q is son.nom your whom.acc.sg.m you say.2pl
þatei blinds gabaurans waurþi (Jn 9:19)
comp blind.nom.sg.m born.nom.sg.m get-to-be.3sg.pret.opt
‘is this your son whom you claim that he was born blind?’
As in Lithuanian (Michelini 1984: 169), the optative occurs in embedded questions

that request information. See (298) and (299).
(298) frah ƕa wesi þata (Lk 18:36 ~ frah-uh Lk 15:26)
asked.3sg what.nom.sg.n be.3sg.pret.opt D.nom.sg.n
‘he asked what it was’ (i.e. what was happening)
9.53 The independent optative 461
(299) let, ei saiƕam qimai – u Helias nasjan ina (Mt 27:49)

let conj see.1pl come.3sg.opt–Q Elijah save.inf him
‘wait, let’s see whether Elijah will come to save him’
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’.
9.53 The independent optative

Independent functions of the optative include deontic or agent-oriented modalities
(obligation etc.), illocution markers of reinforcing mode, such as imperative, admoni-
tive, or prohibitive (ni + opt: GE 205), proposition markers of subjective mode, e.g.
doubt/uncertainty, possibility/potentiality, and boulomaic modalities, i.e. wishing
(desiderative/volitive) and hoping (optative/hortative) (Melazzo 2015b: 126; cf.
Schirmer 1874: 9f., 15; Mourek 1893: 155–284; Delbrück 1904: 210).42
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?’
(301) ƕaiwa meinaim waurdam galaubjaiþ (Jn 5:47)

how my.dat.pl word.dat.pl believe.2pl.opt
‘how are you to believe my words?’
42 Those unfamiliar with the terminology are referred to the works in Nuyts & Van der Auwera (2016).
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?’
Indirect dubitative questions are in the optative:

(303) ni maurnaiþ saiwalai izwarai ƕa matjaiþ
neg be.troubled.2pl.opt soul.dat.sg your.dat.sg.f what eat.2pl.opt
jah ƕa drigkaiþ, . . . ƕe wasjaiþ (Mt 6:25)
and what drink.2pl.opt what.inst dress.2pl.opt
‘you should not be concerned for your life, what you are to eat,
what you are to drink, with what you are 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).
9.55 Mood and modality reduction
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
(305) ibai mag | in wamba aiþeins | seinaizos aftra | galeiþan

‘surely he cannot enter his mother’s womb again
jah ga|bairaidau (Sk 2.3.3–7)
and be reborn, can he’
(306) maguts-u driggkan stikl þan-ei ik driggka, jah daupeinai

can.2du-Q drink.inf cup acc.sg.m-rel I drink, and baptism.dat.sg
þizai-ei ik daupjada, ei daupjaindau (Mk 10:38)
dat.sg.f-rel I baptize.1sg.pass [§9.29] baptize.2pl.opt.pass
‘can you two drink the cup that I drink or be baptized also with
the baptism with which I am baptized?’
In (307), the optatives resume indicatives.

(307) ƕas satjiþ weinatriwa jah akran þize ni matjai?
‘who plants vines and does not eat their fruit?’
ƕas haldiþ aweþi jah miluks þis aweþjis ni matjai? (1Cor 9:7A)
‘who tends a flock and does not eat the milk of the flock?’
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).
9.56 Boulomaic modalities
Boulomaic modalities have to do with wishing (desiderative/volitive) and hoping

(optative/hortative). Positive and negative wishes trigger the optative (Marić &
Turković 2008: 150f.) except in the 1st person plural. Examples (310) and (311) belong
to the so-called ‘true’ optatives (Rousseau 2016: 151). (310) translates a sequence of
Greek aorist 3sg imperatives (cf. Köhler 1872: 78f., 87–91; Schirmer 1974: 15; Bernhardt
́ ‘let it come to pass that it be sanctified’ for which a Goth. -nan
1877: 2), e.g. hagiasthē tō
verb provides telic semantics (Katz 2016: 112f.).
(310) weihnai namo þein, qimai þiudinassus þeins,
become.holy:3sg.opt name your come.3sg.opt kingdom your
wairþai wilja þeins (Mt 6:9f.)
come.to.pass.3sg.opt will your
‘may your name become venerated, may your kingly rule come,
may your will come to pass’
(311) þata þagkjai aftra (2Cor 10:7B)

D.acc.sg.n contemplate.3sg.opt again
‘let him/her contemplate this again’
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!’
(314) wainei usþulaidedeiþ meinaizos leitil ƕa unfrodeins

endure.2pl.pret.opt my.gen.sg.f little indf folly.gen.sg.f
‘how I wish you’d put up with a little bit of my foolishness’ (2Cor 11:1B)
[Gk. Óphelon aneíkhesthé mou mīkròn tẽi aphrosúnēi
‘how I wish you’d put up with me a little in (my) foolishness’]
9.56–7 Boulomaic modalities and Reinforcing mode 465
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.
9.57 Reinforcing mode
To the category of reinforcing mode belong imperative substitutes. Gothic impera-

tives abound (gagg ‘go!’ alone occurs 28x) and express an order to be executed imme-
diately (Streitberg 1920: 204, 207f.; Klein 1992a: 364f.).44 The optative is substituted for
first person subjects (Feuillet 2014: 38), in some verb classes (§5.23), for attenuation
(GE 204f.), when no immediate action is required, or with prescriptions for all time
(Burckhardt 1872: 7f.; Bernhardt 1877: 3ff.; GE 205; Cuendet 1924: 59; Klein 1992a:
364–7; Marić & Turković 2008: 152f.; Netunaeva & Čuxarev-Xudilajnen 2016).
The examples in (315) and (316) are unrestricted in temporal reference.
(315) inn-gaggaiþ þairh aggwu daur (Mt 7:13)
in-go.2pl.opt through narrow door
‘go in through the narrow door’
(316) hulþs sijais mis (Lk 18:13)

merciful.nom.sg.m be.2sg.opt I.dat.sg
‘be merciful to me’ (Gk. hīlásthētí moi)
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’
(318) ni blandaiþ izwis horam (1Cor 5:9A)

neg mingle.2pl.opt you.acc.pl adulterer.dat.pl
‘do not associate yourselves with adulterers’ (§4.52)
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
44 As in orders to a soldier or servant, e.g. ik manna im habands uf waldufnja meinamma gadrauhtins;

jah qiþa du þamma: gagg, jah gaggiþ; jah anþaramma: qim, jah qimiþ; jah du skalka meinamma: tawei
þata, jah taujiþ (Mt 8:9) ‘I am a man having under my authority soldiers; and I say to this one: Go, and he
goes; and to another: Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does (it)’.
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
9.58 Eventuality and potentiality
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’)
(324) manwei ƕa du naht matjau (Lk 17:8)

prepare.2sg.impv indf:acc.sg.n to night eat.1sg.opt
‘fix something for me to eat at night’ (lit. ‘what I may eventually 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
imma (Jn 7:48, Sk 8.3.1–4)

he.dat
‘seriously, might any of the leaders actually have believed in him?’
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’
(330) þan samaþ garinnaiþ, ƕarjizuh izwara psalmon habaiþ

when to.same run.2pl.opt each you.gen.pl psalm have.3sg
‘when you gather together, each one of you has a psalm’ (1Cor 14:26A)
Complements of certain adjectives, called subject sentences in Marić & Turković
(2008: 156), set up a potential situation or eventuality which licenses mood shift:
(331) batizo ist izwis ei ik galeiþau (Jn 16:7)
better.n is you.dat.pl that I go.1sg.opt
‘it is better for you that I (eventually) go’
CH APTER 10
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
10.1 Matthew 7:12–24 (portions omitted)

12. (tau)jaina izwis mans, swa jah jūs taujaiþ im
do.3pl.opt you.dat.pl men as also you do.2pl.opt he.dat.pl
þata auk ist witoþ jah praufeteis.
that/it for is law and prophets
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.)
1 Thanks to Carla Falluomini for extensive discussion of this chapter.

470 Gothic texts
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)
14. ƕan aggwu þata daur jah þraihans wigs sa brigganda

how narrow that door and constricted way the.one bringing
in libainai jah fawai sind þai
in(to) life.dat.sg and few.nom.pl.m are those/they
bi-gitandans þana.
prfx-get.nom.pl.m him (it)
an (adv) ‘when; how’ (App.)

þata daur (§11.4)
þreihan* (str 1) ‘press, constrict’: PPP þraihans glosses Gk. tethlimménē ‘squeezed,
compressed’ (§§5.5, 11.4)
sa brigganda (§3.13)
libains (f -i-) ‘life’ (§§8.15, 8.30; 3.4, 3.8); for in + dat (for expected acc) in directional
expressions cf. fralusts (verse 13 above)
fawai nom pl m of faus* ‘little, few’ (App.)
10.1 Matthew 7:12–24 471
sind ‘are’: 3pl of wisan ‘be’ (§5.25)

bi-gitan, bi-gat, bi-getun, bi-gitans (str 5 §5.9) ‘find’; the PrP has a relativizing function
like inngaleiþandans (§9.16)
þana acc sg m (lit. ‘him’, referring to wigs ‘the way’, which is masculine)
15. atsaiƕiþ sweþauh faura liugna-praufetum þaim

beware.2pl.impv nevertheless for lie-prophet.dat.pl D.dat.pl.m
izei qimand at izwis in wastjom lambe
rel.m come.3pl at you.dat.pl in clothes.dat.pl sheep.gen.pl
iþ innaþro sind wulfos wilwandans.2
yet inwardly be.3pl wolves ravaging.nom.pl.m
at-sai an (str 5) ‘watch out’ (§5.9)

sweþauh ‘nevertheless’ (App.)
faura (P + dat §6.11) ‘before; for’, here rendering Gk. apó ‘from’ (Klein 1992b: 11)
liugna-praufetus* ‘false prophet’ (§7.5)
izei ‘who’: calcified masculine subject relative pronoun (§9.34)
qiman, qam, qemum, qumans (str 4 §5.8) ‘come’ (App.)
wasti* (f -jō-) ‘garment’: acc wastja, gen wastjos, dat wastjai; pl nom wastjos, acc
wastjos, gen wastjo*, dat wastjom (cf. Goth. wasjan* ‘to clothe’ App.)
lamb (n -a-) ‘sheep, lamb’ (§8.20, App.)
in wastjom lambe (§11.4)
iþ ‘but, yet, however’ (§11.12, App.)
innaþro ‘from within, inwardly’ (§3.31)
wulfs (m -a-) ‘wolf ’ (App.)
wilwan (str 3) ‘rob, plunder’ (§5.7)
wulfos wilwandans (§§1.6, 11.4)
18. ni mag bagms þiuþeigs akrana ubila gataujan

neg can tree perfect.nom.sg.m fruit.acc.pl bad.acc.pl.n yield.inf
nih bagms ubils akrana þiuþeiga gataujan.
nor tree bad fruit.acc.pl perfect.acc.pl.n produce.inf
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.)
19. all bagme ni taujandane akran god us-maitada

all tree.gen.pl neg making.gen.pl fruit good out-cut.3sg.pass
jah in fon at-lagjada.
and in fire at-lay.3sg.pass
all bagme [all of trees]; all is a quantifier (§§4.26, 11.4, 11.11)

taujandane: relativizing function (§9.16); participles with a complement are postnom-
inal (Gering 1874: 308f.)
goþs (adj -a-) ‘good’ (App.)
akran god (§11.4)
us-maitan* (str 7) ‘cut out, prune, amputate’ (§5.11)
fon (n heteroclite §3.3) ‘fire’ (App.): in + acc (§6.13)
at-lagjan* (wk 1 §5.15) ‘lay before, lay upon’: telic (§9.13); note the symmetrical group-
ing akran god usmaitada | jah in fon atlagjada, with homoioteleuton (§1.6)
20. þannu bi akranam ize ufkunnaiþ ins.

therefore by fruit.dat.pl he.gen.pl recognize.2pl he.acc.pl
þan-nu [then-now] ‘therefore, consequently’ (§11.12)

bi + dat ‘on the basis of, by (means of)’ (§6.8) here renders Gk. apó ‘from’ (cf. Klein
1992b: 20, 48)
ize ‘their’: gen pl m of is ‘he’ (§3.15)
uf-kunnan ‘recognize’: prefixed form of 2.kunnan (wk 3 §5.17); ufkunnaiþ for a Greek
future (§11.4) is formally ambiguous (GG 168) but prob ind; VO order (§§11.4, 11.6)
21. ni ƕazuh saei qiþiþ mis: frauja, frauja! inn-galeiþiþ in

neg each who say.3sg to.me lord lord in-go.3sg in
þiudangardja himine ak sa taujands
kingdom.acc.sg heaven.gen.pl but D.nom.sg.m doing.nom.sg.m
wiljan attins meinis þis in himinam.
will.acc.sg father.gen.sg my.gen.sg D.gen.sg.m in heaven.dat.pl
10.1 Matthew 7:12–24 473
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)
22. managai qiþand mis in jainamma daga: frauja,

many.nom.pl.m say.3pl I.dat in that.dat.sg day.dat.sg lord
frauja! niu þeinamma namin praufetidedum . . .
lord neg.Q your.dat.sg.n name.dat.sg.n prophesy.1pl.pret
jah þeinamma namin mahtins mikilos
and your.dat.sg.n name.dat.sg.n miracle.acc.pl.f great.acc.pl.f
gatawidedum?
accomplish.1pl.pret
qiþan (str 5) ‘say’ (§5.9)

jains (str -a-) ‘that (one)’ distal (§3.4, App.)
in jainamma daga ‘on that day’ (§§4.37, 11.4, 11.8)
dags (m -a-) ‘day’ (App.)
ni-u ‘did . . . not, is it not the case that?’ (App. ni, -u, ni-u)
þeins ‘your’ (§§3.14, 8.28, App.)
þeinamma namin: possessive adjectives normally follow the noun; prenominal
position is emphatic or contrastive ‘in your name’ (§§11.4, 11.9) or ‘with (the help of)
your name’ (§6.13)
namo (n -n- irreg §3.3) ‘name’ (§8.16, App.)
praufetjan* (wk 1 §5.15) ‘prophesy’ (App.)
mahts (f -i-) ‘power, might, strength; miracle’ (§8.9, App.)
mikils (adj -a-) ‘great, large, many’ (§8.32, App.)
ga-taujan (wk 1 §5.15) ‘complete, accomplish’ (§9.13)
474 Gothic texts
24. ƕazuh nu sa-ei hauseiþ waurda meina

each now nom.sg.m-rel hear.3sg word.acc.pl my.acc.pl.n
jah taujiþ þo galeiko ina waira frodamma,
and do.3sg D.acc.pl.n liken.1sg him man.dat.sg wise.dat.sg.m
sa-ei gatimrida razn sein ana staina.
nom.sg.m-rel build.3sg.pret house his on stone.dat.sg
nu ‘now, then, therefore’ (§11.12, App.)

hausjan (wk 1 §5.15) ‘hear, listen, obey’ (§4.47)
waurd (n -a- §3.2) ‘word’ (App.)
ga-leikon (wk 2 §5.16) ‘liken, compare’ (§11.4, App.)
ina acc sg m of is ‘he’ (§3.15)
wair (m -a- §3.2) ‘man’ (App.)
froþs (frod-) (adj -a-) ‘intelligent, wise’ (App.)
(ga-)timrjan* (wk 1 §5.15) ‘build (up), construct’ (App.)
razn (n -a-) ‘house’ (App.)
seins* ‘one’s own’ reflexive (§§3.14, 9.3, 9.6f.; 8.28, App.)
ana (P + dat/acc) ‘on’ (§6.5)
stains (m -a-) ‘stone, rock’: sg nom stains, gen stainis*, dat staina, acc stain, pl nom
stainos, gen staine*, dat stainam, acc stainans (App.)
10.2 Matthew 7:25–27

25. Jah atiddja dalaþ rign jah qemun aƕos jah waiwoun windos
and came down rain and came waters and blew winds
jah bistugqun bi þamma razna jainamma, jah ni
and struck.3pl against D.dat house that (distal) and neg
gadraus, unte gasuliþ was ana staina.
fell because found.PPP.nom.sg.n was on stone
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
26. Jah ƕazuh sa-ei hauseiþ waurda meina jah ni taujiþ

and each nom.sg.m-rel hears words my and neg does
þo, galeikoda mann dwalamma, sa-ei
them is.likened man.dat.sg.m foolish.dat.sg.m nom.sg.m-rel
gatimrida razn sein ana malmin.
built house poss.refl on sand.dat.sg
galeikoda 3sg pass of ga-leikon (wk 2 §5.16) ‘liken, compare’ (App.)

dwals* (adj -a-) ‘foolish’ (6x, 1 dupl)
malma (m -n-) ‘sand’ (§8.16)
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)
10.3 Matthew 5:27–28
Hausideduþ þatei qiþan ist: ni horinos. Aþþan ik qiþa

you.heard comp said is neg whore.2sg but.then I say.1sg
izwis þatei ƕazuh sa-ei saiƕiþ qinon du
you.dat.pl comp each nom.sg.m-rel see.3sg woman.acc.sg to
luston izos jū ga-horinoda izai in
lust.inf her.gen.sg already prfx-adultered her.dat.sg in
hairtin seinamma
heart poss.refl:dat.sg.n
qiþan ist ‘(it) is said’: native Gothic (§§5.27, 11.4, 11.13)

horinon (wk 2 §5.16) ‘commit adultery’ (App.): although horinos is formally ambiguous
(cf. Mossé 1956: 133, 135, 265), it is probably 2sg opt (cf. §9.56), and so classified by
Snædal (cf. Mk 10:19, Lk 18:20, Rom 13:9A)
aþ-þan ‘but then’ strongly adversative conjunction (App.)
sai an (str 5 §5.9) ‘see, look at’ (App.)
qino (f -n- §3.2) ‘woman’ (App.)
476 Gothic texts
du ‘to’ + inf in a purposive adjunct (§9.24)

luston (wk 2 §5.16) ‘lust (after)’ + gen (§4.29; Mossé 1956: 166). A number of Greek
MSS have no complement, but several, including the Byzantine main text, have
accusative aut n ‘her’.
izos gen sg f of si ‘she’ (§3.15)
jū (adv) ‘already’ (App.)
ga-horinoda vs. horinos may indicate both temporal completion and sociativity
‘together with’, hence dat izai ‘with her’ (§4.43). Gothic also knows an opposition
ni + unprefixed verb followed by a ga- prefixed verb (Rousseau 2016: 417). Dative
verbs tend not to be transitive; e.g. skalkinon ‘serve’ lit. ‘be a servant’, hence ‘be a
servant to someone’.
hairto (n -n- §3.3) ‘heart’ (§8.21, App.)
seinamma (§§9.3, 11.9)
10.4 Matthew 6:9–13 (The Lord’s Prayer)

In this selection the manuscript punctuation is maintained because it illustrates
rhythmic recitation groups, which correspond in part to phrases (cf. Kauffmann 1920:
12; Rousseau 2012: 60). The first five words are written on one line in gold ink.
Atta unsar þu in himinam weihnai namo þein· 9

qimai þiudinassus þeins· wairþai wilja þeins· 10
swe in himina jah ana airþai·
hlaif unsarana þana sinteinan gif uns himma daga· 11
jah aflet uns þatei skulans sijaima· 12
swaswe jah weis afletam þaim skulam unsaraim·
jah ni briggais uns in fraistubnjai· ak lausei uns af þamma ubilin· 13
unte þeina ist þiudangardi· jah mahts jah wulþus in aiwins·Amen·
þu in himinam: supposedly an awkward construction for an expected relative clause

(Davis 2002), but an appositional phrase headed by a pronoun has parallels; cf. atta
izwar sa in himinam (3x) ‘your father, the one in heaven’, atta izwar sa ufar himinam
(3x) ‘your father, the one over the heavens’, þaim in Xristau (Rom 8:1A) ‘for those in
Christ’ (cf. Gk. toĩs en Khristõi ‘id.’ vs. Lat. iīs / hīs quī sunt in Christō ‘for those who
are in Christ’). The brachylogy is determined in part extralinguistically and in part
grammatically. Greek and Gothic allowed a PP depending on a noun or pronoun,
Latin did not. The allegedly expected relative clause is grounded in the Latin quī es
in caelīs ‘who are in the heavens’. Extralinguistically, the Lord’s prayer is divided
into recitation groups set off by manuscript punctuation: þu in himinam· weihnai
namo þein· þiudinassus þeins· wairþai wilja þeins· swe in himina, jah ana airþai
(no MS punctuation between the last two groups), all with five syllables, as are hlaif
unsarana and þana sinteinan.
10.4 Matthew 6:9–13 (The Lord’s Prayer) 477
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.
10.5 Parable of the Sower and the Seed (Mark 4:1–20)3

1 Jah aftra [Iesus] dugann laisjan at marein, jah galesun sik du imma manageins
filu, swaswe ina galeiþan(dan) in skip gasitan in marein; jah alla so managei
wiþra marein ana staþa was.
and again Jesus began to teach by the sea, and there gathered to him much of a
multitude, so that he went onto a ship to sit on the sea; and that entire multitude
was next to the sea on the land.
manageins filu, literally, ‘much of a multitude gathered themselves’ (§§11.1, 11.10)

swaswe ina galeiþan(dan). The phrase ‘so as him going’ is a literal calque on Gk. h ste
autòn embánta ‘id.’, but seemingly forced in Gothic. The participle is a (generally
accepted) conjecture by Uppström for the infinitive galeiþan in cod. Arg. The idea
is that the throng crowded Jesus so much that he went onto a ship to sit on the sea.
The problem is that, whether accusative and infinitive or accusative and participle,
neither is the norm in a Gothic result clause, although the former has parallels
(§9.47) and is defended by Curme (1911: 364). An accusative and participle could be
interpreted as an accusative absolute, but then swaswe is difficult to explain.
3 This excerpt includes only Mk 4:1–9.

10.5 Parable of the Sower and the Seed (Mark 4:1–20) 479
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 jah laisida ins in gajukom manag jah qaþ im in laiseinai seinai:

And he taught them much in parables, and said to them in his teaching:
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)
3 Hauseiþ! Sai, urrann sa saiands du saian fraiwa seinamma.

Hark! Lo, the sower ran out to sow (with) his seed.
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)
6 at sunnin þan urrinnandin ufbrann, jah unte ni habaida waurtins, gaþaursnoda.

but when the sun came up, it burned up, and because it had no roots, it withered
away.
at sunnin . . . urrinnandin: dative absolute (Mossé 1956: 186) with at as a temporal
marker, focusing device, or incipient local case assigner (§§4.31, 6.7, 9.17)
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.
9 jah qaþ: saei habai ausona hausjandona, gahausjai.

And he said: he who (may) have ears (for) hearing, let him heed.
haban (wk 3 §5.17): habai (3sg opt): potentiality (§9.58)

auso (n -on-) ‘ear’ (§8.21, App.)
(ga)hausjan (wk 1) ‘hear, listen to, obey’ (§5.15)
hausjandona (PrP acc pl n) ‘(for?) hearing’ (§9.16)
gahausjai (3sg opt): reinforcing mode (§9.57); the aspectual shift from hausjandona
‘hearing’ to gahausjan ‘listen up; heed’ is not in the extant Greek or Latin texts
(cf. Mossé 1956: 180, 268)
10.6–7 Title deeds from Arezzo and Naples 481
10.6 Landsale deed from Arezzo [538]
Ik Gudilub. dkn þo frabauhtaboka fram mis

I G. deacon d.acc.sg.f sales.document.acc.sg from me.dat.sg
gawaurhta þus . dkn. Alamoda fidwor unkjane hu[[g]]sis
wrought.1sg you.dat deacon A.voc? four uncia.gen.pl house.gen.sg
Kaballarja jah [s]killigggans. rlg. andnam jah ufmelida
C. and gold.coin.acc.pl 133 received.1sg and (under)signed.1sg
‘I, the deacon Gudilub, prepared the/this sales-document, from me to you,
deacon Alamod, concerning four uncia of the territory Caballaria,
and I received 133 gold pieces and undersigned.’
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.
10.7 Debt-settlement deed from Naples, Signature 2 [551]

Ik Sunjaifriþas diakon handau meinai ufmelida jah
I S. deacon hand.dat.sg my.dat.sg sign.1sg.pret and
andn[emum] skilliggans .j. jah fau(r)þis þairh kawtsjon
received.1pl gold.coins 60 and before.that per credit contract
miþ diakon[a ala]moda unsaramma jah miþ gahlaibaim
with deacon representative our.dat.sg and with colleague.dat.pl
unsaraim andnemum sk[il]lingans .rk. wairþ þize
our.dat.pl received.1pl gold.coin.acc.pl 120 cost this.gen.pl.m
saiwe
marshland.gen.pl
Sunjaifriþas probably for Wulfilian *Sunja-friþas ‘Truepeace’ (cf. Amalafriþas and

see Förstemann 1900: 1371), but with juncture vowel <ai> (Schütte 1933: 121f.);
cf. Suniefridus diac in the Latin version, possibly with -us as the default for mascu-
line nouns (Carla Falluomini, p.c.). This is the only name with final -s in these four
documents that differ only in names and titles. For the names, see Wrede (1891:
141f.). Grienberger’s reading (1900: 241f.) Wiljarīþs bokareis ‘Wiljariþ the amanuen-
sis/scribe’ (Sig. 4) with final -s is incorrect (Bernhardt 1875: 649f.; cf. Wrede 1891:
87ff.; Snædal 2013a: i. 71). A Wiljariþ was cleric (Lat. UUiliarit clēricus) at the Gothic
church of Sancta Anastasia in Ravenna, and a Viliaric antīquārius headed the scrip-
torium possibly responsible for codex Argenteus (see Tjäder 1972: 146f.; Griepentrog
1990: 36), but there is no evidence that they are the same individual (Ebbinghaus 1997
[1995]). The other names are Merila bokareis (Sig. 3) and Ufitahari papa ufm(el)ida
handau meinai (Sig. 1) ‘I Ufitahari the priest undersigned with my hand’ = Lat.
Optarit . . . praesb(yter) ‘U. the priest’.4 On the name, see Wrede (1891: 97ff.)
uf-meljan* ‘sign, put one’s signature to’ (to meljan [wk 1] ‘write’), a calque on Lat. sub-
scrībere (or Gk. hupo-gráphein), lit. ‘underwrite; undersign’ (Scardigli 1973: 159;
Francovich Onesti 2011: 204)
. j. = saihs tiguns [six tens]
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.’
10.8 Skeireins 4.2.16–4.3.24

16. . . . . jah skeirs wi
17. sandei mikilduþs jai frau
jins. wulþaus ka(n)
nida qiþands:
20. Sa iupaþro qimands
ufaro allaim ist: . . .
4.3.5 Iþ sik airþakunda
na: jah us airþai
484 Gothic texts
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’
iupaþro ‘from above’ (§3.31; cf. innaþro App.)

ufaro ‘on top; over’ (§6.29)
‘he (the one) coming from above is over all’
airþa-kunds* [hapax] ‘of earthly descent’ (§7.14); cf. airþeins (§8.30)

airþa (f -ō-) ‘earth’: sg nom/acc airþa, gen airþos, dat airþai (App.)
rodjan (wk 1) ‘talk, speak, say’ (§5.15)
‘but (declaring) himself earth-born and speaking from the earth’
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)
‘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
garaihtei (f -n-) ‘justice, righteousness’ (cf. ga-raihts ‘just, righteous’): attested in sg

nom garaihtei, gen garaihteins, dat/acc garaihtein, pl dat garaihteim (§8.6)
weitwodjan* (wk 1) ‘bear witness’ (§5.15; cf. weitwoþs* in App.)
‘whether being a saint or a prophet and bearing witness to righteousness’
akei ‘nevertheless, but’ (App.)

waurd-ah-s* (adj -a-) ‘verbal, characterized by words’ (§8.31)
‘nevertheless he was from earth and speaking from a verbal (rational) nature’
jabai ‘if ’ (App.)

leik (n -a-) (freq) ‘body; flesh’: sg nom/acc leik, gen leikis, dat leika, pl nom/acc
leika, gen leike (App.)
þugkjan* (wk 1 irreg.: pret 3sg þūhta) ‘believe; seem, appear’; impers ‘seem’
(§5.15)
‘yet the one come from heaven, (even) if he seemed to be in a body, nevertheless he is
over all’
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’
10.9 Excerpts from the Bologna fragment

The texts in this section are from codex Bononiensis, edited by Falluomini (2017;
cf. Falluomini 2016b, 2014 noted F), with supplemental discussion by Finazzi &
Tornaghi (2013, 2014, 2016 noted FT). The fragment contains some passages and com-
binations of passages previously unattested in the Gothic corpus. Gaps in the MS are
indicated by [. . .] (longer stretches indicate longer gaps); letters or words enclosed
in brackets are restored. Words omitted as belonging to a different sentence are
indicated by . . . .
10.10 folio 1 recto (Bl 1r), lines 1–26
1 [. . . . . . . . . . . . . /.]an · nasei unsis f(rauj)a g(u)þ unsar

save us lord god our
2 [jah galis unsis u]s þiudom · in þaimei nu bauam
and collect us from nations in which now dwell.1pl
486 Gothic texts
3 [. . . . . . . . /.bisun]jane unsis · iþ ussindo unsib

about us but especially iniqui-
4 [jaim jah frawau]rhtaim wisandam : Bisunja
tous and sinful being abo
5 ne uns[ibj]a[i gag]gand · akei þu f(rauj)a bairgais un
ut iniquitous go.3pl but you lord protect.2sg.opt us.
6 sis jah gawitais unsis faura kunja þamm[a] du
dat.pl and guard.2sg.opt us from race this for
7 aiwa · inuh þis jah sa audaga praufetus da
ever for-and this and the blessed prophet Da-
8 weid armaleiko bikunþjands kuni manne nu
vid contritely disclosing.nom race man.gen.pl now
9 ubilaize f(rauj)in · jah skapa [h]ropeiþ qiþanda · na
evil.gen.pl.m lord.dat and creator.dat cries.out saying sa
10 sei mik f(rauj)a unte fairl[ag] weihs aiþþau airkns ·
ve me lord for failed holy or genuine
11 nasei mik f(rauj)a unte [ni]st saei nasjai ufar þuk f(rauj)a ·
save me lord for is.not who save.3sg.opt over you lord
12 nih airus nih agg[i]lus nih andbahts nih ahma
nor envoy nor angel nor servant nor spirit
13 ak silba f(rauj)a qam du nasjan unsis · swa auk jah
but self lord came to save us as for also
14 pawlus qiþiþ · wainahs ik manna ƕas mik lau
Paul says wretched I man who me re
15 seiþ us þamma leika d[a]uþaus þis · nih witoþ ·
leases from D.dat body death.gen D.gen nor law
16 nih praufeteis · nih stauos · nih þiudanos · nih
nor prophets nor judgements nor kings nor
17 reiks · in ƕis · in þizei witoþ trudan warþ · stau
rulers for what for which law trodden got judge
18 am fra[t]rudan warþ · praufetum usquman
dat.pl trodden.on got prophet.dat.pl killed
19 warþ · weihaim gamaurþiþ warþ · [i]n[r]iurida
got saint.dat.pl murdered got destroyed
20 aiþþau frawardida [. . . . . . . . . /.] einana [. . /.]
or corrupted
21 n[is]t saei waurkjai þiuþ nist un[d] ainana ·
is.not who work.3sg.opt good is.not to one
22 allai ushniwun sama[na unb]r[ūkj]ai wau[r]þun ·
all turned.aside together useless they.became
10.10 Bologna folio 1 recto (Bl 1r) 487
23 inuh þis ik þa(n) qaþ in allaim wailadede is awi

for.and this I then spoke in all benefit.gen.pl his I.give.
24 liudo g(u)þa meinamma þair<h> i(es)u x(rist)u saei ist [n]as
thanks god my through Jesus Christ who is sa
25 jands allaiz[e] manne þishun þize ga[l]aub
vior of.all men especially the believe.
26 jandane · sa a[u]k þa(n) qaþ ga-nasjiþ managein
PrP.gen.pl he for then said prfx-save.3sg multitude
Notes (Bl 1r.1–26)

1. nasei (2sg impv) ‘save’ (nasjan §5.13)
nasei unsis ‘save us’ (also Mt 8:25); cf. nasei mik (Jn 12:27) ‘save me’, nasei þuk
(Mk 15:30) ‘save yourself ’; the more frequent ganasjan (§5.15) is never found in
the impv.
2. galis (conjectured): 2sg impv to ga-lisan ‘collect, gather’ (§5.9). The impv to this
verb is (otherwise) unattested.
þiuda (f -ō-) ‘people, nation’ (App.)
bauan ‘dwell’ (§5.17)
3. ussindo (adv) ‘especially’ occurs 2x: here and ufar skalk broþar liubana, ussindo
mis, iþ an filu mais þus (Philem 16) ‘beyond a servant, a beloved brother, espe-
cially to me, but how much more to you’.
unsibjis (adj -ja-) ‘ungodly, iniquitous; outlaw’ (see sibja in App.)
4. frawaurhts (adj -a-) ‘sinful’, orig PP of fra-waurkjan* (§5.15) ‘(commit a) sin’,
hence lit. ‘having done wrong’. For the restoration, note unsibjaim jah frawaurh-
taim (1Tim 1:9A/B) ‘for the ungodly and sinful’; cf. uswaurhtans ak frawaurhtans
(Mk 2:17) ‘(not) the righteous but sinners’, with the parallel uswaurhts* (adj
-a-) ‘righteous, uncorrupt, possessing integrity’, lit. ‘worked out [to perfection]’
to us-waurkjan* ‘accomplish’ (only PrP nom pl m uswaurkjandans Eph
6:13A/B).
bisunjane (adv, P) ‘about’ (§6.23)
5. gaggan (§5.12) ‘go’: ‘the wicked walk about’ (§6.23)
bairgan* (str 3) ‘keep, protect’ (+ dat §4.43)
6. ga-witan* ‘watch carefully, guard’ (see 2.witan §5.17)
faura (P + dat) ‘in front, before; for’ (§6.11)
kuni (n -ja-) ‘clan, tribe, race, stock; generation’ (§8.18, App.)
7. aiws* (m –a-, 1x -i- §3.2) ‘time; age; long time; (n)ever’ (App.)
in-uh = in (P+ gen) ‘on account of ’ (§6.13) + -uh ‘and’ (§§11.12, 11.14, App.)
inuh þis ‘and on account of this, for this reason’ (§6.13)
audags (adj -a-) ‘blessed, fortunate’ (§8.31)
praufetus (m -u-) ‘prophet’ (see praufetes in App.)
8. arma-leiko (only here) ‘remorsefully, contritely; pitifully, miserably’ (§7.22)
bikunþjan* ‘disclose, show’: a new verb (Falluomini 2017)
488 Gothic texts
9. skaps* (m -a-) ‘creator’, derived from (ga)-skapjan* ‘create’ (Schuhmann

2016: 68f.)
hropjan (wk 1) ‘cry out, shout’ (§5.15)
qiþanda ‘saying’ occurs 3x (Bl 1r.9, 1v.3, 1v.17f.) for expected qiþands (§3.13)
10. unte (causal conjunction) ‘because, for’ (see 2.unte in App.)
fairlag ‘failed; is lacking’: 3sg pret of fair-ligan* (see ligan* §5.9)
1. weihs (adj -a-) ‘holy, sanctified; saint’ (App.)
aiþþau ‘or’ (see 1.aiþþau in App.)
airkns (adj -a-) ‘(innately) holy, genuine, pure’ (previously only unairkns* ‘unholy’
attested; see airkniþa §8.7)
11. nist saei nasjai ufar þuk (§8.37)
12. airus (m -u-) ‘(human) messenger’ (nom sg previously unattested); there is
frequently a contrast between airus and aggilus ‘(divine) messenger, angel’
(see airus in App.)
andbahts (m -a-) ‘servant, minister’ (see andbahti §8.18)
ahma (m -n-) ‘spirit’ (§8.16)
13. qam du nasjan unsis ‘came in order to save us’ (§9.23)
14. wainahs (adj -a-) ‘unfortunate, unlucky, miserable’ (§8.31)
lausjan (wk 1) ‘free, release’ (§5.15); 3sg -eiþ (§2.12)
15. leik (n -a-) ‘body; flesh; fleshly body’ (§7.22, App.)
dauþus (m -a-) ‘death’ (for the type, see §8.10)
witoþ (n -a-) ‘law’ (App.)
16. 1.staua (f -o-) ‘judgment’. Contextually 2.staua (m -n-) ‘judge’ is expected. FT (4,
26) read staua[ns], but Carla Falluomini (email 9/22/17) confirms that (i)
there is no room for staua(n)s but ‘judges’ may be the correct interpretation of
stauos, and (ii) if that is so, late Gothic has a parallel in bi horos for bi horans*
(Ver 19:30; see §1.5). Note dat pl stau|am ‘judges’ (line 17f.). It is also possible
that nih stauos nih þiudanos ‘neither judgments nor kings’ parallels the pre-
ceding nih witoþ nih praufeteis ‘neither the law nor the prophets’ (Roland
Schuhmann, p.c.)
þiudans (m -a-) ‘king’ (§8.29, App.)
17. reiks [m -C-] ‘ruler’. The reiks was under the þiudans (§10.4 s.v. þiudinassus; reiki*
App.)
trudan (Lk 10:19), *traþ, *tredum, trudans* (str 4) ‘tread on, trample’; with trudan
warþ, cf. fra[t]rudan in the next line and gatrudan warþ (Lk 8:5) ‘got trampled
down’.
18f. See §4.43, end.
19f, inriurida, frawardida: syntactically parallel formations but context is lacking and
the part of speech uncertain. Frawardida is a previously unattested form of
fra-wardjan* ‘to corrupt’, and inriurida belongs to previously unattested
*in-riurjan; cf. riurjan*, only 3pl riurjand (1Cor 15:33A) with a margin gloss
10.10 Bologna folio 1 recto (Bl 1r) 489
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)
Translation (Bl 1r.1–26)

[. . . . . . . . .] Save us, Lord, our God,
[. . . . . . . . .] us from the nations in which we now dwell
[. . . about] us but especially (those) being
outlaws and sinners; the wicked
walk about, but you, Lord, (may you) protect us
and guard us from this generation for
ever. For this reason also the blessed prophet David
contritely discloses the race of now evil people
cries out to the Lord and Creator, saying,
Save me, Lord, for lacking is a holy man or sincere,
save me, Lord, for there is no one who can save more than you, Lord,
neither messenger nor angel nor servant nor spirit
but the Lord himself came to save us, for as also
Paul says, A wretched man I am: who will release me
from the body of death? Neither the law
nor the prophets nor the judge(ment)s nor the kings nor
rulers: because of whom/what (is it) on whose account the law was trodden,
judges were trodden on, prophets were killed,
holy men were murdered. . . . destroyed
or corrupted . . . .
There is no one who does good, (there is) not one single person.
All turned aside. Together they became useless.
And for this reason I then spoke. In all of his benefits, I give
thanks to my God through Jesus Christ, who is savior
of all men, especially the believers. He then said he’ll save the people.
490 Gothic texts
10.11 folio 1 verso (Bl 1v)
1 seina af frawaurhtim ize · a[. . . . . . . . . . . . /.]

his.own from sins their
2 in tojam apaustaule sama ḷ[ukas insok]
in acts of.apostles same Luke declared
3 qiþanda : nist auk þa(n) qaþ [namo anþar uf]
saying is.not for then said name other under
4 himina atgiban mannam in [þammei skulum]
heaven given to.men in which must.1pl
5 ganisan weis · alja in namin [þein]a[mma] þeinai
be.saved we but in name your of.your.
6 zos [þ]a(n) naseinais nist marka jah mitads: þei
gen.sg.f then salvation neg.is limit and measure your.
7 naizos naseinais nist wokrs nih fairlet: na
gen.sg.f salvation neg.is usury nor desertion sa
8 sei mik f(rauj)a: þuei nauel us swaleikamma midja
ve me lord you.who Noah from such fl
9 sweipainais watin g[a]nasides · þuei Lod us Sau
ood.gen water you.saved you.who Lot from So
10 daumos gawargeinai g[an]asides · þuei Israel
dom’s damnation you.saved you.who Israel
11 us faraoni jah wairam se[in]am ganasides ·
from pharaoh and men his you.saved
12 þuei jainans þrins magu[n]s ananeian aza
you.who those three boys Hananiah Aza
13 reian mesael us þiudana ganuta(n)s jah us agis
riah Mišael from king.dat captured and from fright
14 leikamma auhna funins brinnandin gana
ening oven fire.gen burning.dat sa
15 sides · þuei daniel us b[a]ljondane l(a)iwane
ved.2sg you.who Daniel from roaring lions
16 munþam manwjane du fraslindan ganasides ·
mouths ready to devour saved.2sg
17 þu nu þa(n) qaþ f(rauj)a jah mik nasei ei ƕopau qiþan
you now then said lord and me save that boast say
18 da: in g(u)þa [n]aseins meina jah wulþus [m]eins
ing in god.dat salvation my and glory my
10.11 Bologna folio 1 verso (Bl 1v) 491
19 jah f(rauj)ins is[t] naseins jah ana managein þeinai

and lord.gen is salvation and on multitude.dat your.dat
20 [þi]uþeins þeina · n[a]sei nu mela fraistubnjos
blessing your save.impv now time.dat temptation.gen
21 al[l]ans þans wenjandans du þus · þuei ja[h p]ai
all.acc.pl those.acc.pl hoping.acc.pl in you you.who and Pe
22 tr[u] s{i}ugqanana standandan in marein gana
ter sunken standing.nom.sg.m on sea save
23 sides : at paitrau qiþandin · nasei unsis þa(n)
2sg.pret at Peter.dat.sg saying.dat.sg save.impv us then
24 qa<þ> f(rauj)[a] fraqistnam : bi þanei jah lukas insok
said.3sg lord perish.1pl about whom and Luke declared
25 qiþa[n]da in tojam · insandei d[u] iauppein jah
saying in act.dat.pl dispatch.impv to Joppa and
26 athait seimona saei ananam(n)[ja]da paitrus
summon.impv Simon who is.surnamed Peter
Notes (Bl 1v.1–26)

2. taui (n -ja-) ‘work, deed’ (sg nom/acc taui, gen tojis*, dat toja, pl acc toja, dat
tojam); in tojam ‘in deeds, acts’
in tojam apaustaule ‘in the Acts of the Apostles’ (shortened to in tojam below)
sama ḷ[ukas insok] (part of the l is visible: Carla Falluomini, p.c.): the syntax of
sama ‘one (and the same)’ (App.) is difficult to ascertain, since it is in a recon-
struction and some context is missing (Ratkus 2018c)
in-sakan (str 6) ‘declare’, 3sg pret in-sok (see sakan §5.10)
3. qiþanda (for expected qiþands) ‘saying’ (§3.13)
nist . . . anþar (§11.12)
4. atgiban: PPP nom sg n of at-giban (str 5) ‘give (to)’ (see giban §5.9)
5. ga-nisan (str 5) ‘be saved’ (§5.9)
6. naseins (f -īni-) ‘salvation’ (§8.14): only forms of the singular are attested: nom
naseins, gen naseinais, dat naseinai, acc nasein (cf. Thöny 2010)
marka (f -o-) ‘limit’ (nom sg previously unattested), pl ‘territory’ (§6.25)
mitads (f -C-) ‘measure, measurement’
7. wokrs (m -a-) ‘return (on an investment); usury’ (only dat sg wokra previously
attested)
fairlet (n -a-) ‘desertion, abandonment’ (a new word: Falluomini 2017: 293); cf.
fralet (acc) ‘release, dispensation’
8. Nauel (m -a-) ‘Noah’: nom Nauel (Lk 17:27), gen Nauelis (Lk 3:36, 17:26), acc
Nauel (only here)
midjasweipains (f -i-) ‘(the great) flood’ (§7.3, end)
492 Gothic texts
8ff. See §6.19.

9. (ga)nasjan (wk1 §5.15) ‘save, rescue; heal’; impv nasei, 2sg pret ganasides (line
22f.; the only attestations of nasides)
Lod (only here) ‘Lot’
Saudauma (Rom 9:29A) ‘Sodom’ = Gk. nt pl Sódoma (§2.6), but Saudauma can
be a fem -o- stem on the evidence of gen Saudaumos (only here)
10. gawargeins* (f -īni-) ‘damnation’ (only dat sg gawargeinai here and 2Cor
7:3A/B)
Israel (m -a-) ‘Israel’
10f. See §9.7 (end).
11. farao (Bl 2v.20) (m -n- irreg): dat faraoni (Lat. Pharaōnī) here and Rom
9:17A
wair (m -a-) ‘man’ (§3.2)
12. Anan(e)ias*: dat Ananiin (Neh 7:2) ‘Hanani’, Ananeiin (Neh 7:2) ‘Hananiah’,
acc ananeian (1x) ‘Hananiah’ (cf. Daniel 1:6) = Gk. Ananíān (Falluomini 2017:
293)
12f. Azareias* ‘Azariah’ (cf. Daniel 1:6): only acc Azareian (1x) = Gk. Azaríān
(Falluomini 2017: 293)
13. Mesael ‘Mišael’ (only here) = Gk. Misa l (Falluomini 2017: 293)
agisleiks* [fear-like] ‘terrible, frightening’ (§7.22)
ga-niutan* (cf. niutan Lk 20:35), *ganaut, ganutun (Lk 5:9), ?ganutans [new
form] (str 2) ‘catch, capture’ (niutan ‘gain benefit of ’ and ganiutan otherwise
2x each)
us þiudana ganutans ‘(saved the boys) from the king and from. . . ’. If this is right,
how does ganutans ‘captured’ fit in? It should refer to the boys, in which case
one expects acc pl *ganutanans. If the reading is correct, this could be an
example of haplology.
13f. See agisleiks* (§7.22)
14. aúhns* (m -a-) ‘oven’: only dat auhna (here) and acc auhn (Mt 6:30)
fon (n heteroclite stem) ‘fire’: nom/acc fon, gen funins, dat funin (App.)
brinnan*, (uf)-brann (Mk 4:6), *brunnum, *brunnans (str 3) ‘burn’ (itr):
simplex attested only in PrP brinnand- (here and Sk 6.1.18)
15. Daniel (otherwise unattested in Gothic) = Gk. Dani l (Falluomini 2017: 293)
baljon* (wk 2) ‘roar’ (new word; only here) = ON belja ‘bellow’ etc. (Falluomini
2017: 291)
l(a)iwa (m? -n-) ‘lion’ (new word; only here): the reading laiwane fits the space
better (Falluomini 2017: 291), even if liwane is preferred on Slavonic evidence
(§1.1, ftn. 4)
16. munþs (m -a-) ‘mouth’
manwus (adj -u- §3.6) ‘ready’ (psych adjective §9.19, end). The weak form of the
gen pl is unexpected. In its six other occurrences (2 dupl), manwus is strong,
and ‘ready’ is not definite, identificational, or classifying. Manwjane may copy
baljondane and l(a)iwane (Artūras Ratkus, p.c.), homoioteleuton being a

favored stylistic device (§1.6)
fra-slindan, *-sland, *-slundum, *-slundans (str 3) ‘swallow up, engulf ’ (other-
wise, only 3sg pass opt fraslindaidau 2Cor 5:4A/B)
17. opan (str 7) ‘boast, brag’ (§§5.11, 5.21)
18. wulþus (m -u-) ‘splendor, glory’ (App.)
19. managei (f -īn-) ‘multitude, crowd’; the P ana takes accusative ‘onto, upon’ or
dative ‘on (top of), for’, as here on the evidence of þeinai, but managei (read
by FT) would be irregular (F reads managein)
20. þiuþeins (f -īni-) ‘blessing’ (nom previously unattested: FT 147f.; also sg gen
þiuþeinais, dat þiuþeinai), a formation like naseins above and derived from
wk 1 þiuþjan* ‘bless’.
mela fraistubnjos (so F with several letters marked uncertain) ‘(in) a time of
temptation’; cf. in mela fraistubnjos (Lk 8:13) ‘id.’
21. wenjan* (wk 1) ‘hope’ (with du ‘in’ §6.9)
22. s{i}ugqanana standandan in marein; the correct reading is probably sigqa-
nana with a possible correction of i to u (Falluomini 2017), i.e. sugqanana
‘sunken’
standan (str 6) ‘stand’
marei (f -īn-) ‘sea; inland sea, lake’ (sg gen mareins, dat/acc marein)
24. fra-qistnan (wk 4) ‘be(come) utterly destroyed, perish’
25. in-sandjan (wk 1) ‘send off/away, send on a mission, dispatch’
iauppein (dat sg) ‘Joppe’ = Gk. Ióppēn (Falluomini 2017: 293)
26. at-haitan* (str 7) ‘call to, summon, bid come’
ana-namnjada: 3sg pass of ana-namnjan* (wk 1) ‘to surname’ (Falluomini 2017:
291; cf. FT 36, F 290), a previously unattested verb construct (with ana ‘onto,
upon’), translating Gk. ‘is surnamed’, Lat. cognōminātur ‘id.’. The
sense of ‘in addition’ is not among the functions of ana identified by Thomason
(2006: 59–61) but is consistent with a metaphorical extension of ‘on top of ’ as
a rendering of Gk. epí.
Translation (Bl 1v.1–26)

( . . . he will save) his own (people) from their sins . . . .
In the Acts of the Apostles, one Luke declared,
saying: for there is not, he then said, another name under
heaven given to people in which we must
be saved, but in your name. Of your 5
salvation, then, there is no limit and no measure.
Of your salvation there is no usury and no desertion.
Save me Lord, you who saved Noah from such
water of the great flood; you who saved Lot
from the damnation of Sodom; you who rescued Israel 10
494 Gothic texts
from pharaoh and his men;

you who rescued those three boys—Hananiah, Azariah,
Mišael—from the king, (though) captured (?), and from the
terrible burning furnace of fire;
you who saved Daniel from the mouths of roaring lions 15
ready to devour (him).
Now you then, I said, Lord, Save me also that I may boast, saying,
In God (is) my salvation and my glory,
and salvation is the Lord’s, and upon your people
is your blessing. Save now in a time of temptation 20
all those hoping in you, you who also saved Peter
(when) standing sunk on the sea.
But with Peter saying, Save us, then,
he said, Lord, we (will) perish. About whom also Luke declared,
saying in the Acts, Send (him) then to Ioppa and 25
summon Simon who is surnamed Peter.
10.12 folio 2 verso (Bl 2v), lines 7–14
7. . . . sai magaþs in kilþein ga-nimiþ jah (Mt 1:23)

behold virgin.nom.sg in womb prfx-take.3sg and
8. ga-bairiþ sunu jah haitan(d) namo is inmanuel
prfx-bear.3sg son.acc.sg and call.3pl name he.gen.sg E.
9. þatei ist ga-skeiriþ miþ unsis g(u)þ jabai nist
which is prfx-interpret.PPP.nom.sg.n among us god if neg.is
10. g(u)þ bi ƕana qaþ praufetus · g(u)þ meins ni fair
god about whom spoke prophet god my neg remove.
11. jais þuk af mis · jah anþara managa · akei ni
2sg.opt you.acc from me and other many but neg
12. wilda galaubjan skap[a] jah dagand allaizo
wanted.1sg believe.inf creator.dat and illuminator.dat all.gen.pl.f
13. wiste · saei daig ainƕarj[a]mmeh hairtona ize·
being.gen.pl who fashioned everyone.dat.sg heart.acc.pl they.gen.pl
14. saei fraþjiþ in alla waurstwa ize . . .
who understand.3sg on all.acc.pl.n work.acc.pl.n they.gen.pl
Notes (Bl 2v.7–14)

Verses 7–9 are a translation of Mt 1:23, not preserved in any other Gothic manuscript
(FT 17).
7. magaþs (f -i-) ‘virgin, maiden’ (nom previously unattested) (App.)
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.
Translation (Bl 2v.7–14)

Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb and
bear a son, and they (will) call his name Emmanuel,
496 Gothic texts
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
Linearization and typology
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.
11.1 Constituent structure in the Parable

of the Sower and the Seed
In the parable of the Sower and the Seed (§10.5) the order Quantifier—D—N is
frequent (Mossé 1956: 176), e.g. alla so managei ‘all the crowd’ (Mk 4:1), but at least this
and some others may be Greek prompted (= pãs ho ókhlos ‘id.’).
Adjectives generally follow nouns, but can precede, e.g. diupaizos airþos ‘of deep
earth’ (Mk 4:5), which is not a literal translation of Gk. báthos gẽs ‘depth of earth’
(cf. Ratkus 2011: 98f.; 2016: 44). Nouns usually precede possessive/anaphoric adjectives,
as in (1).
(1) a) in laiseinai seinai (Mk 4:2)
in teaching poss.refl:dat.sg.f
[Gk. en tẽi didakhẽi autoũ ‘id.’]
b) fraiwa seinamma (Mk 4:3)
seed.dat poss.refl:dat.sg.n
‘with his (own) seed’
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

498 Linearization and typology
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’
(3) ausona hausjandona (Mk 4:9)

ears.acc.pl.n hearing.acc.pl.n
‘hearing ears’ [ears (for?) hearing]
Example (2) could be a word-for-word rendering of the Greek karpòn anabaínonta

kaì auxánonta (v.l. auxanómena not in the Byzantine main text) ‘id.’, but (3) is not
similar in any way to the Greek construction õta akoúein ‘ears to hear’ with an infini-
tive (§9.16).
Prepositional phrases are genuine Gothic syntax in admitting no D-words, and
contrast absolutely with the corresponding Greek construction with an article., e.g.
in marein vs. Gk. en tẽ(i) thalássēi ‘on the sea’, ana staþa ‘on the shore’ vs. parà tē n
thálassan ‘by the sea’, faur wig vs. parà tē n hodón ‘by the road’, in airþa vs. epì tẽs gẽs
‘on the earth’, etc.
Since nouns normally precede partitive genitives (§11.10), a forced construction
is manageins filu ‘of multitude much’ (Mk 4:1), a partial calque on Gk. ókhlos polús
[crowd much] (v.l. ókhlos pleĩstos [crowd very large] not in the Byzantine main text).
11.2 Word order in the title deeds

and Bible translation
While it is possible that the title deeds (§§10.6f.), originally from Ravenna, were com-
posed in Gothic initially, it cannot be ruled out that they were translations since
they coexist with Latin versions. Moreover, they differ in certain properties from the
Biblical texts translated from Greek, as the following comparison illustrates.
11.3 Title deeds (A = Arezzo, N = Naples)
P–N (no D-words) N–P: none

fram mis ‘from me’ (A)
þairh kawtsjon ‘through (a) bond’ (N)
miþ gahlaib[a]im ‘with companions’ (N)
11.3–4 Title deeds and Bible translation 499
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)
11.4 Bible translation (S = Sower and Seed, Mt = Matthew)
P–N (no D-words) N–P: none
in himinam ‘in (the) heavens’ (Mt 7:21)

[en ouranoĩs ‘in (the) heavens’]
ana staina ‘on (the) stone’ (Mt 7:24)
[epì tē n pétrān ‘upon the rock’]
N–Poss Adj Poss Adj–N: rare
fraiwa seinamma ‘(with) his seed’ (S) þeinamma namin ‘(in) thy name’ (Mt 7:22)
[not in Gk. text: Mk 4:3] [tõi sõi onómati ‘(in) the your name’]
waurda meina ‘my words’ (Mt 7:24)
[≠ mou toùs lógous (of.me the words)]
razn sein ‘his house’ (Mt 7:24)

[cf. tē n oikíān autoũ ‘the house of.him’]
N–Adj (attributive) Adj (attributive)–N: rare
akran god ‘good fruit’ (Mt 7:19) aggwu daur ‘narrow door’ (Mt 7:13)
[karpòn kalòn ‘id.’] [tẽs stenẽs púlēs ‘the narrow door’]
mahtins mikilos ‘great miracles’ (Mt 7:22) diupaizos airþos ‘of deep earth’ (S)
[cf. dunámeis pollas ‘many miracles’] [cf. báthos gẽs ‘depth of earth’]
mann dwalamma ‘to foolish man’ (Mt 7:26)
[andrì mōrõi ‘id.’]
N–Adj (predicative): none Adj (predicative)–N
braid daur ‘broad [is] (the) door’ (Mt 7:13)
[plateĩa hē púlē ‘broad the door’]
rūms wigs ‘roomy [is] (the) way’ (Mt 7:13)
[eurúkhōros hē hodós ‘spacious the way’]
aggwu þata daur ‘narrow [is] the door’
[stenē hē púlē ‘narrow the door’ (Mt7:14)]
N–participle (attributive) Participle–N (predicative)
akran urrinnando ‘fruit springing up’ (S) þraihans wigs ‘constricted [is] way’ (Mt 7:14)
[karpòn anabaínonta ‘id.’ Mk 4:8] [tethlimménē hē hodós ‘compressed
[is] the way’]
wulfos wilwandans ‘ravaging wolves’ (Mt 7:15)
[cf. lúkoi hárpages ‘rapacious wolves’]
Q(uantifier)–N N–Q
all bagme ‘all (of) trees’ (Mt 7:19) manageins filu ‘much of crowd’ (S)
[≠ pãn déndron ‘every tree’] [cf. ókhlos polús ‘crowd much’]
D–N N–D
in jainamma daga ‘on that day’ (Mt 7:22) bi þamma razna jainamma (Mt 7:25)
[ekeínēi tẽi hēmérāi ‘id.’] [against the house that/yon]
[tẽi oikíāi ekeínēi ‘id.’] (§6.8)
Q–D–N Other: none
alla so managei ‘all the multitude’ (S)
[pãs ho ókhlos ‘id.]
N–D: none D–N
þata daur ‘the/that door’ (Mt 7:14)
[hē púlē ‘id.’]
þai þaurnjus ‘the/those thorns’
[hai ákanthai ‘id.’ Mk 4:7]
11.4 Bible translation 501
N–Gen Gen–N: none

[despite several Greek prompts]
bi akranam ize ‘by fruits of.them’ (Mt 7:20)
[apò tõn karpõn autõn
‘from the fruits of.them’]
in wastjom lambe ‘in clothes
of sheep’ (Mt 7:15)
[en endúmasin probátōn ‘id.’]
wiljan attins meinis ‘will of my father’ (Mt 7:21)
[tò thélēma toũ patrós mou
the will of the father of.me]
in þiudangardja himine
‘in(to) kingdom of heavens’ (Mt 7:21)
[eis tē n basileíān tõn ouranõn
‘into the kingdom of the heavens’]
Aux–Verb: none Verb–Aux
qiþan ist ‘is said’ (Mt 5:27) [Gk. erréthē]
gasuliþ was ‘was founded’ (Mt 7:25)
[Gk. tethemelíōto 3sg plupf pass]
V–O: most of the sample O–V
ufkunnaiþ ins (Mt 7:20) mahtins mikilos gatawidedum
‘you (will) recognize them’ ‘great miracles we accomplished’ (Mt 7:22)
́
[epignōsesthe autoús ‘id.’] ́
[dunámeis pollas epoiēsamen
‘miracles many we made’]
V2 and V1
ni mag bagms . . . ubila gataujan (Mt 7:18)
not can tree.nom bad.acc make.inf
[ou dúnatai déndron . . . poieĩn ‘id.’]
jah qemun a os jah waiwoun windos (Mt 7:27)
‘and came waters and blew winds’
[kaì ẽlthon hoi potamoì kaì épneusan
hoi ánemoi ‘id.’]
V–O–IO O–V–IO: none
galeiko ina waira frodamma (Mt 7:24)

‘I (will) liken him to the wise man’
[homoiōsṓ autòn andrì phronímōi ‘id.’]1
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 . . . )’).
11.5 Linearization overview

Subject pronouns preferentially precede the verb directly. Object nouns and pronouns
generally follow the verb. Reflexives with few exceptions follow the verb and precede
nonreflexives. D-words generally precede nouns and adjectives. Only prepositional
phrases occur, from which nondeictic Ds are excluded. Attributive and possessive
adjectives tend to follow the noun, quantifiers to precede. The default position for geni-
tives is postnominal. Partitive genitives are nearly always postposed. Discourse particles
belong to the left periphery. Some force their host to sentence-initial position. In
native Gothic, verbs follow predicate adjectives and auxiliaries follow verbs. Imperatives
raise to the left periphery. The negator ni forms a tight constituent with the verb.2
11.6 Pronouns
Although every possible order seems to be attested (Friedrichs 1891), generalizations

can be made. Subject pronouns preferentially precede the verb directly. Ik (less often
jūs) allows an intercalated phrase; only þu + verb is frequent after a phrase (Ferraresi
2005: 38). When a subject and an object pronoun are present, the order is preferen-
tially SO (ibid. 50). Reflexives generally precede nonreflexives (ibid. 52) except that
mik silban etc. tend to follow (Friedrichs 1891: 123).
Reflexives with very few exceptions follow the verb (Douse 1886: 268). This is most
significant when Greek has a single word (Harbert 2007: 209; LHE2 238), e.g. gawasida sik
(Mt 6:29) = periebáleto ‘got dressed’, us-haihāh sik (Mt 27:5) = apē ǵ ksato ‘hanged
himself ’ (ap-ágkhein ‘strangle’), skama mik (Lk 16:3, 2Tim 1:12A/B) = aiskhúnomai
‘I am ashamed’, skamaiþ sik (3x ~ skamaid sik Lk 9:26) ‘is ashamed’, ni nunu skamai
þuk (2Tim 1:8A/B) ‘do not therefore be ashamed’, ni skamaida sik (2Tim 1:16A/B)
‘he was not ashamed’. In its only occurrence in the Bologna fragment, sik precedes
possibly because of the conjoined verbs: sik afdomeiþ jah gawargeiþ (Bl 2r.25) ‘curses
and condemns himself ’.
Object pronouns in general tend to follow the verb (McKnight 1897a: 148f.; cf.
Friedrichs 1891; Fourquet 1938: 273; Rousseau 2012: 251), e.g. qam du nasjan unsis
(Bl 1r.13) ‘came to save us’, a|kei jainþro dalaþ atdraga þuk (Bl 2r.6f.) ‘but I will
drag you down from there’ (§6.34), ni fair|jais þuk af mis (Bl 2v.10f.) ‘do not
withdraw from me’ (§9.8), nasei mik (Jn 12:27, Bl 1r.9f., 11, 1v.7f.) ‘save me’, but mik
nasei (Bl 1v.17) ‘id.’, as mik lauseiþ (Rom 7:24A, Bl 1r.14f.) ‘who will release me?’ The
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.’.
11.8 Prepositional phrases (PPs)
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)
Strings of genitives tend to be right-branching (Werth 1965: 130–3), as in (5) and

(6), for which the Greek text has the same linearization.
(5) anastodeins aiwaggeljons Iesuis Xristaus sunaus gudis (Mk 1:1)
beginning gospel.gen J.gen Chr.gen son.gen god.gen
‘the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, son of God’
[Gk. arkhē toũ euaggelíou Iēsoũ xristoũ huioũ toũ theoũ
beginning of.the gospel Jesus christ son of.the god
(all nouns after arkhē ́ are in the genitive)]
(6) O diupiþa gabeins handugeins jah witubnjis

o depth wealth.gen.sg wisdom.gen.sg and knowledge.gen.sg
gudis (Rom 11:33A+C)
god.gen.sg
‘O the profundity of the wealth (and) of the wisdom and knowledge of God!’
́
[Gk. Õ báthos ploútou (kaì) sophíās kaì gnōseōs theoũ ‘id.’]
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.).
11.11 Numerals and quantifiers
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
consist of conjunctions, complementizers, adverbs, and modality markers connected

with the left periphery. Many of these were traditionally labeled Wackernagel clitics
(Wackernagel 1892; Hopper 1969; Eythórsson 1995: 103–42; Tunkle 2000; Hale 2007: ch. 9).
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
(§6.39). This is difficult to explain in any way other than by reference to the switch
from V-final. In V-final syntax, the particles could not follow the verb but would have
to precede, setting the stage for univerbation. With the switch from V-final, unless a
particle is lexically marked for adjunction (i.e. is inseparable in traditional terms), it
can remain stranded when the verb raises to a higher position in the syntactic struc-
ture. This happens first in matrix clauses, and only later in subordinate clauses (Miller
2010: ii. ch. 2, w. lit). The Gothic corpus features mostly matrix clause raising.
Sentence discourse particles are held to linearize as follows (Ferraresi 2005: 173):
(7) ibai/an iþ -u -uh þan nu/auk
This panoply is misleading in several respects: (i) any given sentence rarely contains
even three particles, (ii) the order is relative on a pairwise basis, (iii) the order
changes with function, like the three uses of þan (App.), and (iv) interrog -u and
conj -uh ‘and’ are nearly always cliticized to the first (nonclitic) word of the clause
(§11.14). Buzzoni (2009) puts -u and an in Speech Act position and ibai and niu in
Force Phrase (§9.1).
Several particles are categorically clause-initial (Werth 1965: 55, 60f.): 2./3.aiþþau
‘or else, otherwise; then, in that case’, ak ‘but’ (after a negated constituent), akei ‘but’
(e.g. Bl 1r.5, 2r.6f., 2r.24, 2v.11), aþþan ‘nevetheless, but’, an ‘then’ in insistent informa-
tion requests, e.g. an as ‘who then?’.
Iba(i) (59x, 11 dupl) is a rhetorical question marker that presupposes a contrary
reply. It is clause-initial except for aiþþau ibai frawaurht tawida (2Cor 11:7B) ‘or did I
commit a sin?’, and is preceded by þatainei ‘only’ at Gal 5:13B.
In the absence of a conjunction, jabai ‘if ’ and unte ‘because’ are S-initial (Douse
1886: 268), but note aþþan unte (Jn 15:19) ‘but because’, ak unte (2Cor 7:9A/B) ‘id.’, iþ
jabai (39x, 5 dupl) ‘but if ’, aþþan sweþauh jabai (2Cor 10:8B) ‘but even if ’. Unte jabai
‘for if ’ occurs 10x (3 dupl), but there is no instance of *jabai unte. Topics precede jabai:
þu nu jabai inweitis mik (Lk 4:7) ‘you then, if you worship me’.
Iþ ‘but, yet, however’ is frequently clause-initial (e.g. Bl 1r.3, 2r.9, 2v.15, 17, 24), but
note unte iþ (Mt 11:21, Lk 10:13) ‘yet because’, and a topicalized or focused word can
precede, e.g. sa iþ wesi praufetus (Lk 7:39) ‘yet this man, were he a prophet’ (§9.45).
þan ‘now then, moreover, therefore’ (e.g. Bl 1r.23) follows iþ 6x and aþþan 3x
(Mk 8:20, Jn 15:26, Gal 2:11B). Temporal þan ‘when’ precedes both nu (2Cor 1:17A/B) and
auk (Lk 7:8, Jn 12:10), but there is one assured instance of relative þan auk (Rom 7:5A)
‘for when’ (cf. §9.30). This contrasts with sa a[u]k þan qaþ (Bl 1r.26) ‘for he then said’,
with adverbial þan; cf. nist auk þan qaþ [namo anþar] (Bl 1v.3) ‘for there is not, he then
said, another name’. Adverbial þan follows nu, e.g. þu nu þan qaþ (Bl 1v.17) ‘you now,
he then said’; cf. nasei unsis þan qaþ (Bl 1v.23) ‘save us, he then said’, etc.
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’.
11.13 Verbs and auxiliaries
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].
‘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]
Conjunctive -uh ‘and’

The conjunction -uh ‘and’ is enclitic to verbs, P-words, pronouns (except is), and pro-
nominal adjectives, never nouns (Dahlmann 1876: 257). It conjoins only main clauses
5 Rousseau (2012: 220f.; 2016: 463–7) refers to the construction as focalization or mise en relief
‘highlighting’, i.e. foregrounding, which does not take the backgrounding function into account.
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’
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
Participles can be negated by ni or undergo un- formation (Wilmanns 1896: 562ff.;

Johansson 1904: 466; Grewolds 1934: 164ff.; Coombs 1976: 36–41), e.g. unrodjands
(Mk 9:25+) ‘unspeaking’ (Aston 1958: 21), þai unsai andans (Jn 9:39) ‘the unseeing’.
Coombs (pp. 40, 55–8) discusses the contrast in (18).
(18) ụṇkunnands auk | nauh wisands | jah ṇị kunnands biūh|ti
unknowing for still being and neg knowing practice
‘for being still ignorant and not knowing the practice’ (Sk 2.2.18–21)
Unlike the un- -ing adjectives in English, the corresponding Gothic type inherits an
object case feature from the PrP, as in (19) and (20).
(19) ni sijum unwitandans munins is (2Cor 2:11A/B)
neg be.1pl unknowing.nom.pl.m plan.acc.pl he.gen.sg
‘we are not ignorant of his (Satan’s) intentions’
(20) all taine in mis unbairandane akran

all branch.gen.pl.m in me unbearing.gen.pl.m fruit.acc
goþ (Jn 15:2)
good.acc
‘every branch in me not bearing good fruit’
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).
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)
(22) jū ni drigkais þanamais wato (1Tim 5:23A/B)

from.now.on neg drink.2sg.opt henceforth water
‘henceforth you are to drink no more water’
[Gk. mēkéti hudropótei ‘no longer water-drink’;
Lat. nōlī adhūc aquam bibere (don’t still water drink)]
In counterfactual conditionals, the verb preceded by its negator is clause initial in

the protasis, but in the apodosis can be preceded by a focused item (§9.50).
In subordinate clauses the verb can remain final, as in (23).
(23) þannu nu ei faur mel ni stojaiþ (1Cor 4:5A)
therefore comp before time neg judge.2pl.opt
‘and so therefore (the moral is) that you not judge before the time’
́ mē prò kairoũ ti krī nete
[Gk. hōste ́ ‘and so do not judge prematurely at all’,
Lat. itaque nōlīte ante tempus iūdicāre ‘and so do not judge before time’]
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.
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).
11.16 The position of Gothic within Germanic

A single but stratally differentiated language called Proto-Germanic made a number
of shared innovations, possibly at slightly different times in different areas (Ringe 2017:
85; cf. Euler 2009: 41f.), after splitting off from ‘central’ (or ‘nuclear’) Indo-European.
The Germanic expansions occurred rapidly (Wolfram 2004: 54), which facilitated
evolution of separate languages, ranging from Gothic in the east to Scandinavian in
the north and the West Germanic group.8
Innovations shared by all the Germanic languages include Grimm’s and Verner’s
Laws (the latter preserved only residually in Gothic), collapse of the subjunctive and
optative into a single mood, innovation of a class of preterite presents, the strong
and weak verb, and the strong and weak adjective. The system of strong versus weak
adjectives is best preserved in German (as a concomitant of the D-word, independent
of definiteness), alive in Scandinavian, lost predicatively in Dutch, and gone in English
and Afrikaans (cf. Orr 1982/83: 111).
Some seventy derivational suffixes have specialized uses in Germanic. The
nominal, pronominal, and verbal system are remarkably consistent throughout the
Germanic world. Consider the pronoun ‘I/me’: Goth. ik/mik, OE ic/mec, ON ek/mik,
OHG ih/mih.
The differences between Gothic and the rest of Germanic are equally significant.
These are due in part to the early attestation of Gothic and in part to the fact that
East Germanic split off the earliest from Proto-Germanic. Hence, morphologically,
North and West Germanic are closer to each other than either is to East Germanic
(Bahnick 1973).
In the realm of phonology, Gothic has no evidence of ever having had umlaut
(Cercignani 1980; Stutz 1985: 965), which is so characteristic of North and West Germanic.
Visigothic in the east, at least, probably lost all inherited diphthongs except *eu (> iu),
but developed secondary diphthongs. Gothic alone preserved -u- in final syllables
after light and heavy syllables alike. Verner’s Law in the verbal system is restricted to
a few forms, and Gothic alone had Thurneysen’s Law of spirant dissimilation.
Since different demonstratives grammaticalized into definite articles in different
areas, Proto-Germanic had no articles. Gothic D-words have only a few of the features
associated with articles, and for this reason rarely translate Greek articles.
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).
Gothic has only the predicative adjunct resultative construction in (27).

(27) Gothic predicative resultative (cf. Rousseau 2003; Andrason 2010)
unte daubata habaiþ hairto izwar (Mk 8:17)
? hard.acc.sg.n have.2pl heart.acc.sg.n your.acc.sg.n
‘do you still have your heart hard (i.e. unfeeling)?’
[Gk. éti pepōrōménēn ékhete tē n kardíān hūmõn
‘do you still have your heart hardened?’]
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.
11.17 Typology of Gothic and Germanic linearization

By way of a final summation, in terms of linearization typology, Germanic was in the
process of a shift from Verb-final to non-V-final and regularizing the position of
modifiers, specifiers, heads, and complements. Prepositions and sentence-initial
complementizers were fully stabilized and exceptionless in Gothic. These two fea-
tures overwhelmingly correlate with non-Verb-final linearization (Miller 2010: ii. 21,
48, w. lit).
Another Germanic innovation was V2 order, triggered by certain functional fea-
tures in the left periphery. This was on the increase but violable in Gothic, and never
became fully regular in Old or Middle English, as it did in North and Continental
West Germanic.
All of the early Germanic languages, including Gothic, were standardly V1 with
imperatives, direct questions, and several other structures (Eythórsson 1996; Harbert
2007: 410–15; Miller 2010: ii. 50).
On the conservative side, the default postpositioning of auxiliaries in Gothic was
shared with early runic inscriptions, e.g. haitinaz was ‘was commanded/called’ (Kalleby
stone [?c.400]). This is a residue of PIE V-final order (Miller 2010: ii. 47ff., w. lit).
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).
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
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).
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,
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,
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.)
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)
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)
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
*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).
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.
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-;
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-
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.)
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’)
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)
(ga)kannjan, ga-kannida, ga-kannidedun, kanniþs* (1x) (wk 1) ‘make known, inform of ’ = ON

kenna ‘to know, recognize; assign; feel, perceive; show, teach’, OS (ant-)kennian ‘see through,
acknowledge, know’, OHG (ar-)kennan ‘recognize’, OE cennan ‘choose, prove, declare’
< Gmc. *kannjan- (GED 215, EDPG 279f.) causative of *kunnan- (see kann, kunnan)
kaurn (acc) (n -a-) ‘grain, wheat’ = ON korn ‘corn, grain’, OS korn, corn ‘grain, seed, rye’, OHG
korn ‘grain, kernel’, OE corn ‘grain, seed, berry; corn on the foot’ < PGmc. *kurna- ‘grain,
wheat’ < *grh2-nó- ‘ripened, matured’ [*gerh2- ‘ripen, mature’ LIV 165]; cf. Lat. grānum
‘grain, seed’ (HGE 225, RPIEL 178, LSDE 60, EDPG 312); preferable to *grh2-nó- ‘crushed,
ground, milled’ (NWG 317f., LHE2 101, 119) because the grain must be mature/ripe but need
not be pounded or milled (EDL 271)
kuni (n -ja-) ‘clan, tribe, race, stock; generation’ = ON kyn ‘kin; kind, sort; gender’, OS kunni
‘race, line, lineage, progeny; generation; kind; tribe, people, nation’, OHG kunni ‘lineage;
people; generation; kind’, OE cyn(n) ‘progeny; tribe, family, nation; sort, kind; gender,
sex’ < Gmc. *kun-ja- < IE *gnh1-yo- [*genh1- ‘beget’] (HGE 224, NWG 124, EDPG 311)
1. kunnan (prt prs) ‘be acquainted, know (how)’ = ON kunna, OS, OHG kunnan, OE cunnan
‘know, be able to’ (GED 222f.) < pre-PGmc. (3sg) gunnā-ti < IE *gnnóh3-ti (LHE2 178f.) [*gneh3-
‘recognize’] (other hypotheses in EDPG 312, Randall & Jones 2015: 166f.; see also kann above)
kunþs ‘known, recognized’ = ON kunnr, kúþr, OS cuth, cud /kūð/ ‘known, acquainted, renowned’,
OHG kund ‘id.’, OE cūþ ‘known, renowned; clear, manifest; noted, celebrated; familiar,
intimate’ (> couth) < Gmc. *kun-þa-z < IE *gnh3-tó- [*gneh3- ‘recognize’]; cf. Gk. gnōtós
‘recognizable, known’, Lat. (g)nōtus ‘id.’; cf. *un-kunþaz (< *n-gnh3-tó-; cf. Gk. ágnōtos
‘unknown’) > Goth. unkunþs ‘unknown’, ON úkúðr, úkunnr ‘id.’, OE uncūþ ‘id.’ (> uncouth)
(Elkin 1954: 375f., MUN 251, AHDR 32, GED 223, LIV 168ff., VG 271, HGE 224, EDL 413ff.,
EDPG 312, LIPP 2.541); the original oxytone developed mobile accent in Germanic, predicting
mixed reflexes with and without VL, but the voiceless variant was generalized from the
strong cases (Kiparsky 2010)
laggs* (adj -a-) ‘long’ = ON langr, OS, OHG lang, OE long long < Gmc. *langa-z = Lat. longus
‘id.’ < *dlonh1gh-o- [*dlh1gh- ‘long’ EDPG 327] (cf. GPA 361, AHDR 15, HGE 235f., LSDE 43)
lagjan, (ga)lagida, (ga)lagidedun, ga-lagiþs (wk 1) ‘lay (down), place’ (caus of ligan* ‘lie’) = ON
leggja ‘lay, put’, OS leggian ‘lay (out), put (down)’, OHG lecken, le(g)gen ‘lay’, OE lecgan ‘lay,
place, put’ < Gmc. *lagjan- (cf. Bammesberger 1988) < PIE caus *logh-éye- [*legh-] (AHDR
47, GED 233, HGE 231, LIV 398, EDPG 322)
laisjan, ga-laisjan (wk 1) ‘teach, instruct’: Gothic alone has /s/ vs. */z/ in the other dialects
(Bernharðsson 2001: 208ff.): ON læra ‘teach’, OS lerian, lérean /lērian/ ‘id.’, OHG lēren /
lērran ‘id.’, OE læran ‘id.’ < Gmc. *laizjan- (causative to *lisan-) < European causative *lois-
éye- [*leis- ‘learn’; cf. *leis- ‘track, furrow’] (GED 225f., HGE 233, LIV 409, EDPG 325 and
324 s.v. *laisō-); cf. Goth. lais ‘I know’, supposedly from an IE stative *lois-é (Randall &
Jones 2015: 168), but the formation is obscure (LHE2 179)
lamb (n -a-) ‘sheep’, 1x ‘lamb’ (§8.20, end) = ON lamb; cf. -es- stem: OS, OHG, OE lamb ‘lamb’
< Gmc. *lamba-/*lamb-iz-: etym. unclear GED 226 and ignored in AHDR; cf. HGE 234,
LHE 278; the alleged connection with Gk. élaphos ‘deer’ should have given Gmc. *lumb-,
rendering a reconstruction *h1l-n-bho- difficult (pace EDPG 325), but an ablaut form
*h1l-on-bho- could work (Patrick Stiles, p.c.)
laus ‘empty, void’ = ON lauss ‘loose, free’, OS los /lōs/ ‘loosed, free of, devoid of ’, OHG lōs ‘lax,
lighthearted; loose; wicked’, OE lēas ‘loose, free; void of; vain, false, deceitful’ < *lou(h1)-s-o-
[*leuh1-(s-) ‘loosen’] (EDPG 329)
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
(EDPG 346f.); Boutkan reconstructs Gmc. *mag-aþ- ~ *mag-iþ- as a substratum word

(2003: 25)
magus (m -u-) ‘(maternal) son, slave, boy’: nom magus, gen magaus, acc magu = runic *maguz,
magōz (Kr 60, ORI 18), magu (Kr 75, ORI 38), ON mogr ‘boy, youth, son’, OS magu ‘son’, OHG
magu (-zogo) ‘educator, mentor’, OE magu ‘child, son, servant’ < Gmc. *maguz [post-PIE
*maghu- ‘boy’]; cf. Ogham Irish magu-, OIr. mug ‘slave’ (AHDR 50, HGE 253f., EDPG 347
[West European root]), LHE2 111, rather than *makkw-o-s ‘son’ (> OIr. macc ‘son’) (Vennemann
2003: 377ff.; Mikhailova 2007); Boutkan relates them all as substratum words (2003: 16)
mahts (f -i-) ‘power, might, strength; miracle’ = ON máttr (m -u-) ‘strength, power, health’,
OS, OHG maht ‘might, power, strength; male member’, OE meaht / miht ‘strength, power,
might’ < PGmc. *mah-ti-z < dial. IE *ma/ogh-ti- [*mogh- EDPG 373 / *magh- ‘be able’ LIV
422] (AHDR 50, HGE 254, NWG 502, EDPG 347, LHE2 134); ON máttr reflects a parallel
*-tu- formation (Thöny 2013: 275–8)
maitan (in bi-maitan ‘circumcise’) (str 7) ‘to cut’ = OHG meizzan ‘cut (off), hew’ < *maitan-;
cf. ON meita ‘cut, trim’ < caus *maitjan- (etym. doubtful GED 241f.; several guesses in HGE
256, EDPG 349; unlikely *meiH-1 ‘get small’ LIV 427)
managei (f -īn-) ‘multitude, crowd’ = ON mengi ‘id.’ (n *-jan), OS menigi ‘crowd, troop, people’,
OHG managī, menigī < Gmc. *managīn- with secondary -n- (Mezger 1946: 353); cf. OE
meni/egu / menig(e)o (f -u-) ‘multitude’ (Brunner 1965: 226); derived from *managaz ‘many’
(see manags)
manags* (adj -a-) ‘sufficient, large, many’ (cf. nom pl m managai) = ON mangr ‘many, much’,
OS manag ‘id.’, OHG manag / menig ‘id.’, OE manig (> many) < *managa- supposedly a
nasal-infixed form of *meg-h2- ‘great’ (Brugmann & Delbrück 1967: ii. 971; HGE 259), but
formal pecularities, as in OSlav. *mŭnogŭ, Russ. mnogo ‘much, many’ < *munogho- point to
a substratum word (Boutkan 2003: 23) localized to NW IE (EDPG 352)
manna (m -n- irreg) ‘human being, person’ = OE manna / monna ‘human being; man’; cf. ON
mað-r, OS man(n) ‘man, person, husband; one’, OHG man(n) ‘id.’, OE monn / man(n)
‘man, human being; servant’ < Gmc. *mann-z / *mann-ōn < IE *manw- [*mánu-/*mánw-
‘person’]; cf. Ved. mánu- ‘person, man’ (Kahle 1887: 51–4, GED 244, AHDR 51, HGE 260,
NWG 44f., LHE2 165; differently EDPG 353f.)
manwjan (wk 1) ‘prepare, train, equip’, deadj to manwus ‘ready’, related to the Greek perfect
participle mema s (cf. Lat. meminī) with a shift from ‘gedenkend, willens’ to ‘ready’ (PWGA
290–4)
mari- ‘sea’ (in mari-saiws* §7.19) = ON marr (m) ‘id.’, OHG mari, meri (m/n?) ‘id.’, OE mere
(m/1x f]) ‘sea; lake; marsh; artificial pool’ < Gmc. *mari- (m/n -i-) ‘lake, sea’ < Europ. *mor-
i- (n -i-) ‘large body of water’; cf. Lat. mare (n -i-) ‘sea’ (HGE 261, NWG 190, EDL 365, EDPG
354f.); cf. late-extended *mar-i-n- (transferred in the absence of *-in- stems to the *-īn-
stems, hence *marīn-) in Goth. marei (f -n-) ‘sea’, OS meri (f) ‘sea, lake’ (nom 1x, acc 1x)
[or -i- stem?], OHG marī, merī ‘lake, sea’ (NWG 190, EDPG 355; Thöny 2013: 262–5; Schuhmann
2018b). On the older account, -n- was added to a collective *morih2 (e.g. Meid 1982: 95; GG 97)
meins (poss adj, str -a-) ‘my’ = runic mīn-, ON minn, OS, OHG, OE mīn mine / my < Gmc.
*mīnaz < dial. IE *méi-no-; cf. *méy-(o-) ‘my’ (> Lat. meus ‘id.’), both built on dat-loc mei
‘(belonging) to me’ (Schmidt 1978: 82–5; LIPP 2.507; cf. Heltoft 2001; IEL 226f.; Harðarson
2017: 926) [*me- prn 1sg, oblique cases] (GED 250, AHDR 51, HGE 273; IS 362f.; the recon-
struction *h1meino- in EDPG 369 is excessive)
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.)
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
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)
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.
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).
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)
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 *seis 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
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)
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)
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’]
ni swaswe fraujinonds qiþa izwis (2Cor 8:8A/B)

‘not as (one) issuing a command I speak to you’
[= Lat. nōn quasi imperāns ‘not as (one) commanding’; contrast the
Gk. ou kat’ epitag n ‘not by commandment’ (Kauffmann 1903: 454, w. lit)]
(iii) ‘according as; according to’
andanem ist, ni swaswe ni habai (2Cor 8:12A/B)
‘it is acceptable not according as he has not’ i.e. ‘not by what he doesn’t have’
[Gk. kathò (kat’ hó) ouk ékhei ‘according to what he does not have’; Lat.
secundum id quod nōn habet ‘according to that which he does not have’]
(iv) Small clause particle ‘as’ (§4.53):
ni swaswe fijand ina rahnjaiþ (2Thess 3:15A/B)
‘do not count him as an enemy’
(v) Result clause conjunction + indicative ‘so (that)’ (Gk. h ste + inf) and with ni ‘so
that . . . not’ 5x (Gk. h ste m + inf; cf. Klein 2011: 141):
gaqemun managai, swaswe jūþan ni gamostedun (Mk 2:2)
‘the crowds gathered, so that there was no longer room’ (§5.24)
(vi) Emphatic swe:
was auk laisjands ins swe waldufni habands jah ni swaswe bokarjos (Mt 7:29)
‘for he was teaching them as one having authority and not like the scribes’8
swe (adv [traditional classification] freq, conj 12x) has several distinct functions:
(i) Conjunction ‘as, when’; result ‘so (that), so as’:
swe hausida Aileisabaiþ golein Mariins (Lk 1:41)
‘as/when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting’
gafullidedun ba þo skipa, swe sugqun (Lk 5:7)
‘they filled both boats, so (that) they sank’
(ii) Comparisons involving a gapped clause ‘as, like’:
wastjos is waurþun glitmundjandeins, ƕeitos swe snaiws (Mk 9:3)
‘his clothes became glistening, white as snow [is]’
gawasida sik swe ains þize (Mt 6:29)
‘dressed like one of those’ [i.e. ‘as one of those dresses’] (§9.8)
ganah siponi ei wairþai swe laisareis is (Mt 10:25)
‘it is enough for the student that he become like his teacher’ (§§9.2, 9.6)
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).
dags fraujins swe þiubs in naht swa qimiþ (1Thess 5:2B)

‘the day of the Lord will so come like a thief [i.e. as a thief comes] in the night’
wiljau allans mans wisan swe mik silban (1Cor 7:7A)
‘I want all men to be like myself ’ [i.e. ‘as I want myself to be’]
(iii) Approximation ‘about’ (Gk. hōs ‘as’, Lat. quasi ‘as (if)’, colloquial Eng. like):
wesun-uþ þan swe twos þūsundjos (Mk 5:13)
‘and they were then about two thousand’
dauhtar ainoho was imma swe wintriwe twalibe (Lk 8:42)
‘he had an only daughter of about 12 winters’ (i.e. about 12 years old)
þar-uh farjandans swe spaurde ·k· jah ·e· (Jn 6:19)
‘and when sailing about 25 (of) stades’
(iv) Small clause particle ‘as’:
rahnidai wesum swe lamba slauhtais (Rom 8:36A)
‘we were counted/regarded as sheep for the slaughter’ (§4.55)
(v) Correlative to swa ‘as . . . as’ (see swa):
swa filu auk swe fauragameliþ warþ (Rom 15:4B)
‘for as much as was written down before’
(vi) Negated counterfactual (Gk. hōs m PrP) ‘as though not’ (Delbrück 1904: 280)
jabai andnamt, ƕa ƕopis swe ni nemeis (1Cor 4:7A)
‘if you received (it), why do you boast as though you did not receive (it)?’
[Gk. ei dè kaì élabes, tí kaukhãsai hōs m lab n ‘id.’] (cf. §6.44)
As to origin, swe is usually claimed to be formed like swa but from instrumental *swe-h1;
cf. ON svá ‘as, like, so’, OE swā ‘so; as; that’ (EDPG 496f.). Dunkel proposes *swa éh1 ‘just
like, exactly like’ (LIPP 2.763f.)
swein* (n -a-) ‘swine, pig, hog’ = ON svín, OS suín/suin, OHG, OE swīn < Gmc. *swīna- ‘swine’,
a common Germanic substantivization of IE *suh1/3-ih2nó- ‘of pigs’ [*suh1/3- ‘sow’]; cf. Lat.
sūs ‘pig’, suīnus ‘of a pig’ (§8.30; GED 334, AHDR 87, HGE 397, NWG 329, EDL 603, Neri
2016: 17, LHE2 147)
sweþauh (adv) ‘admittedly, indeed; however, nevertheless’, e.g. aþþan sweþauh jabai (2Cor
10:8B) ‘but even if ’, jabai sweþauh (Eph 3:2B, 4:21A/B, 2Cor 5:3B, Col 1:23A/B) ‘if indeed’,
sweþauh jabai (Rom 8:9A, 2Thess 1:6A) ‘however if ’, aþþan nu sweþauh witoþ weihata
(Rom 7:12A) ‘then therefore indeed the law is holy’, nih þan ainshun sweþauh balþaba
rodida (Jn 7:13) ‘and then no one, however, spoke openly’, Helia(s) sweþauh qimands faurþis
aftra gaboteiþ alla (Mk 9:12) ‘to be sure, Elijah will come first and restore everything’; of the
18 correspondents of Gk. dé, sweþauh is number 6 (Rousseau 2012: 217)
For the etymology, cf. OE swā þēah ‘nevertheless’, but compositionally is swe + þauh (q.v.)
taujan, tawida, tawidedun, tawiþs* (wk 1) ‘make, do, perform, bring about, effect’ (cf. runic
tawidō ‘I made’ [ORI 23, Gallehus, ca. 400]) = MLG touwen ‘dress (furniture etc.), tan’,
OHG zawen, zowen ‘succeed’, OE tawian ‘prepare’ taw ‘prepare, make (skins into leather)’
< Gmc. *taujan- < *tawjan-. The etymology is disputed. One idea is factitive to *ga-tawa- in
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
(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).
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.
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)
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).
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).
pre-forms point to a borrowing (Schuhmann 2018b). The source of Gk. elephant(o)-

[Mycenaean, Homer, Hesiod] ‘ivory’, [Herodotus] ‘elephant’ is itself uncertain. The best
guess is Hamitic *elu ‘elephant’ plus Egyptian bw ‘elephant’ (cf. Lat. eb-ur ‘ivory’), but the
details are obscure (Miller 2014a: 246f.; ignored in HGE, EDPG)
und (P + acc) ‘up to, unto, until, till, as long as’, (+ dat) ‘in return for, in exchange for’, unþa-
‘antipodally’ = ON und ‘up to’, OS und ‘till’, OHG unt ‘to, until’, OE oð(ð) (þæt) ‘up to (that);
until’, und ‘till’ < Gmc. *unda- / *unþa- < *h2nt-ó [*h2ént-o ‘in front, against’] (LIPP 2.308;
cf. GED 375, AHDR 4, HGE 434, EDPG 559)
unte (normally S-initial)
1. unte occurs 22x (1 dupl) as a temporal conjunction ‘as long as, until’, e.g. unte sa
brūþfads miþ im ist (Lk 5:34) ‘as long as the bridegroom is with them’, unte allata wairþiþ
(Mt 5:18) ‘until everything comes to pass’ (cf. Marold 1881b: 15f.)
2. unte (175x in the Gospels) is a causal conjunction ‘because, for’, generally rendering
Gk. hóti ‘because’ (124x in the Gospels) (Pennington 2010: 410) or (outside of the Gospels)
gár ‘for’ (Marold 1881b: 14–17), e.g. nu fagino, ni unte gauridai wesuþ, ak unte gauridai wesuþ
du idreigai (2Cor 7:9A/B) ‘now I rejoice, not because you were pained, but because you
were pained to repentance’. For a more difficult example, see Sturtevant (1930: 107f.).
For exhaustive discussion of causal clauses, see Pennington (2010: 332–51, 409–); cf. also
þande(i) (above)
3. unte is 9x (2 dupl) a finite complementizer (Gk. hóti ‘that’), as in as þannu sa sijai,
unte jah winds jah marei ufhausjand imma (Mk 4:41) ‘who then might this be that even the
wind and the sea obey him?’ (cf. Marold 1881b: 17ff.); note the alternation with ei ‘that’:
ileiks ist sa, ei jah windos jah marei ufhausjand imma (Mt 8:27) ‘what sort [of man] is this
that even the winds and the sea obey him?’, but ei (for Gk. hóti ‘because; that’) has also been
interpreted as epexegetical (Pennington 2010: 448)
For the etymology, cf. OS unt(i) ‘until’, OHG unz(i), unza ‘id.’ < Gmc. *und-tē supposedly
compounded of und ‘up to, until’ but from *h2nti and *tē < deh1 ‘(up) to’ (Schmidt 1962:
349f.; LIPP 2.153, 308; cf. GED 378, HGE 434). However, given bi-þe [about-this (time)]
‘while’ (< *bhí-téh1 LIPP 2.113, 247), du-þe [to/for-this (reason)] ‘therefore’, unte may be
from und-þe [up.to-this], which accounts for the meaning ‘still’ (like Lat. ad-hūc [to-this]
‘id.’) in unte daubata habaiþ hairto izwar (Mk 8:17) ‘do you still have your heart unfeeling?’
(§11.16), as well as for the meaning ‘as long as, until’ (1.unte), as proposed by Kluge (e.g. 1906:
397; 1911: 8), comparing Goth. und þatei (6x) ‘id.’, e.g. und þatei miþ im ist brūþfaþs (Mk
2:19) ‘as long as the bridegroom is with them’ (see §9.35)
us (uz-, ur-) ‘from, out of ’ (§6.19) goes back to *úd-s and/or a generalized variant of *úd before
dentals (LIPP 2.824f.); the Proto-Germanic form seems to have been *uz > ON ór, úr, OS,
OHG ur, OE or, etc. (HGE 436, EDPG 563)
ūt or (?) ut (adv, prfx) ‘out’ (the vowel length is ambiguous and variously cited as long or
short). Cognates have a long vowel, e.g. ON adv, prfx út ‘out’, OS adv ut /ūt/ ‘out’, OHG
ūz ‘out; outside; but’, OE adv, prfx ūt (> out) (EDPG 562). It is possible that the long vowel
derives from Gmc. *úd-na > Gmc. *ūta > /ūt/ (LIPP 2.824); the Gothic adverb ūta ‘out,
outside’, then, would go back to something like *úd-na+i (LIPP 2.824)
*wagna- (m -a-) ‘wagon, vehicle, carriage’, Crim. vvaghen ‘wagon’ (§1.2) = ON vagn ‘vehicle,
sledge, wagon, carriage’, OS uuagan ‘wagon, carriage; (Big/Little) Dipper’, OHG wagan
‘wagon, carriage, vehicle’, OE wæg(e)n, wæn ‘id.’ < IE wógh-no- ‘wagon’ [*wegh- ‘travel,
transport’] (NWG 312, EDPG 565)
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;
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.)
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
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
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1986a). Der Aufbau des germanischen Verbalsystems. Heidelberg:

Winter.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1986b). Gothische Adjektivbildungen auf *-ha-. PBB 108: 35–9.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1986c). Gotisch (ni) ogs (þus) und althochdeutsch ni kuri. In Etter
(1986: 673–7).
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1988). The paradigm of ja- verbs in Germanic. JIES 16: 233–40.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1990a). Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1990b). Saisost and desinential metanalysis in Gothic. NOWELE
16: 93–8.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1994). The development of runic script and its relationship to Germanic
phonological history. In Swan et al. (1994: 1–25).
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1995a). Die gotischen Akjektiva auf -(w)-isk-. HS/HL 108: 93–101.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1995b). Zur Vorgeschichte von gotisch berusjos und fadrein.
Bammesberger, Alfred. (1999). Urgermanisch *ajuk- und altenglisch ēce/æ ˉce ‘ewig’: Wortbildung
und Phonologie. In Schindler & Untermann (1999: 23–31).
Bammesberger, Alfred, Hackstein, Olav, & Ziegler, Sabine (eds). (2014). Von Fall zu Fall:
Studien zur indogermanischen Syntax. Göttingen (Historische Sprachforschung 125 [2012]):
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bammesberger, Alfred, & Vennemann, Theo (eds). (2003). Languages in Prehistoric Europe.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Bammesberger, Alfred, & Waxenberger, Gaby (eds). (2006). Das fuþark und seine einzelsprach-
lichen Weiterentwicklungen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bandle, Oskar, with Braunmüller, Kurt, Jahr, Ernst Håkon, Karker, Allan, Naumann, Hans-
Peter, & Teleman, Ulf (eds). (2002). The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the
History of the North Germanic Languages. Vol. 1. (Vol. 2, 2005.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Banta, Frank G. (1980). Proto-Germanic short o. Michigan Germanic Studies 6: 17–39.
Barasch, Monique. (1973). A study of synonomy and lexical statistics in Gothic.
Ph.D. dissertation, New York University. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1974.)
[Synonomy [sic] occurs on the title page and as a chapter heading; synonym(y) prevails in
the text.]
Barasch, Monique. (1976). The discrepancies in Wulfila’s Gothic translation of the genitive
absolute. The University of South Florida Language Quarterly 14/3–4: 36.
Barber, P[eter] J[effrey]. (2013). Sievers’ Law and the History of Semivowel Syllabicity in Indo-
European and Ancient Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. (2015). Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In Bowern & Evans (2015:
343–73).
Barðdal, Jóhanna, & Chelliah, Shobhana Lakshmi (eds). (2009). The Role of Semantic,
Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barker, Chris. (2011). Possessives and relational nouns. In Heusinger et al. (2011: 1109–30).
Barnes, Michael P. (2012). Runes: A Handbook. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
Barnes, Timothy D. (1990). The consecration of Ulfila. The Journal of Theological Studies
41: 541–5.
Barnish, Samuel J. B. (1984). The genesis and completion of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History.
Latomus 43: 336–61.
References 571
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
Benveniste, Émile. (1961). Fonctions suffixales en gotique. BSL 56: 21–45.

Benveniste, Émile. (1963). Interférences lexicales entre le gotique et l’iranien. BSL 58: 41–57.
Benveniste, Émile. (1966a). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
Benveniste, Émile. (1966b). Titres et noms propres en iranien ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.
Berard, Stephen Alfred. (1993a). Infinitive usage in Biblical Gothic. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
Berard, Stephen Alfred. (1993b). Biblical Gothic and the configurationality parameter. AJGLL
5: 111–62.
Berard, Stephen Alfred. (1995). Infinitival subject sentences in Gothic. In Rauch & Carr
(1995: 5–46).
Berndt, Guido M., & Steinacher, Roland (eds). (2014). Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian
Creed. Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Bernharðsson, Haraldur. (2001). Verner’s Law in Gothic. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1870a). Die Partikel ga als Hilfsmittel bei der gothischen Conjugation.
Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 2: 158–66.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1870b). Über den Genetivus partitivus nach transitiven Verben im Gotischen.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1874a). Der Artikel im Gotischen. Erfurt: Gerhardt & Schreiber.
Bernhardt, Ernst (1874b). Die gotischen Handschriften der Episteln. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Philologie 5: 186–92.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1875). Vulfila, oder die gotische Bibel: Mit dem entsprechenden griechischen
Text und mit kritischem und erklärendem Commentar nebst dem Kalender, der Skeireins und
den gotischen Urkunden, herausgegeben und erklärt. Halle an der Saale: Waisenhaus.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1877). Der gotische Optativ. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 8: 1–38.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1880). Zur gotischen Casuslehre. Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie 11: 71–82.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1882). Zur gotischen Casuslehre II. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 13: 1–20.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1885). Kurzgefasste gotische Grammatik. Halle an der Saale: Waisenhaus.
Bernhardt, Ernst. (1896). Review of Mourek (1892). Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 28: 130–8.
Bertau, Ingeborg. (1987). Unterscheidung der Geister: Studien zur theologischen Semantik der
gotischen Paulusbriefe. (= Erlanger Studien 72). Erlangen: Palm & Enke.
Besch, Werner, Reichmann, Oskar, & Sonderegger, Stefan (eds). (1985). Sprachgeschichte: Ein
Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bethge, Richard. (1898–1900). Gotisch. In Dieter ([1898–]1900). The work is scattered through-
out: Vokalismus (21–35), Konsonantismus (193–214), Konjugation (391–408), Deklination
(568–602).
Bezzenberger, Adalbert. (1873). Über die gotischen Adverbien und Partikeln. Halle an der Saale:
Waisenhaus.
Bierwisch, Manfred, & Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds). (1970). Progress in Linguistics: A Collection
of Papers. The Hague: Mouton.
Biese, Yrjö Moses Jalmari. (1928). Der Spätlateinische Akkusativus absolutus und Verwandtes:
Eine Untersuchung auf dem Gebiete der lateinischen und der vergleichenden Syntax. Helsingfors:
Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, 22.2.
Binnig, Wolfgang. (1984). got. hraiwadūbo (Lk 2, 24). In Ebenbauer (1984: 41–50).
Binnig, Wolfgang. (1999). Gotisches Elementarbuch. 5th edn. (see Hempel 1962). Berlin: De
Gruyter. [Reviewed by Gebhardt 2004.]
Birkhan, Helmut. (1974). Das germanische starke Adjektiv. In Ebenbauer et al. (1974: 1–24).
574 References
Birkmann, Thomas. (1987). Präteritopräsentia: Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse

in den altgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Biville, Frédérique. (1990–5). Les Emprunts du latin au grec. 2 vols. Louvain: Peeters.
Bjorvand, Harald. (1994). Holt og holtar: Utviklingen av det indoeuropeiske kollektivum i nor-
rønt. Oslo: Solum.
Blake, Barry J. (2004 [2001]). Case. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bloomfield, Maurice. (1891). On adaptation of suffixes in congeneric classes of classes of sub-
stantives. American Journal of Philology 12: 1–29.
Boer, R[ichard] C[onstant]. (1918). Syncope en consonantengeminatie. Tijdschrift voor neder-
landsche taal- en letterkunde 37: 161–222.
Bork, Hans Dieter. (1990). Die lateinisch-romanischen Zusammensetzungen Nomen + Verb und
der Ursprung der romanischen Verb–Ergänzung–Komposita. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.
Börner, K. (1859). Über die Declination der Fremdwörter im Gothischen. Jahresbericht über die
Realschule und die höhere Töchterschule zu Barmen Aug. 1859: 3–17.
Borrmann, Johannes. (1892). Ruhe und Richtung in den gotischen Verbalbegriffen. Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Königl. Vereinigten Friedrichs-Universität Halle-Wittenberg.
Boschung, Dietrich, & Riehl, Claudia Maria (eds). (2011). Historische Mehrsprachigkeit. Aachen
(ZSM Studien, 4.): Shaker.
Bosworth, Joseph, & Toller, T. Northcote. (1882–98). An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: With a Supplement
by T. Northcote Toller (1921). Oxford: Clarendon.
Boutkan, Dirk. (1995). The Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Boutkan, Dirk. (2003). On Gothic magaþ ~ Old Frisian megith and the form of some
European substratum words in Germanic. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik
58: 11–28.
Boüüaert, Joseph. (1950). Oorsprong en vorming van het gotisch alphabet. Revue belge de phi-
lologie et d’histoire 28: 423–37.
Bowern, Claire, & Evans, Bethwyn (eds). (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics.
London: Routledge.
Brand, Gisela, & Hünecke, Rainer (eds). (1995). Wie redet der Deudsche man Jnn solchem fall?
Studien zur deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Festschrift für Erwin Arndt zum 65. Geburtstag.
Stuttgart: Heinz.
Braun, Wilhelm. (1913). Ein satzphonetisches Gesetz des Gotischen mit vorwiegender Rücksicht
auf die Codices Ambrosiani. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 5: 367–91.
Braune, Wilhelm. (1884). Gotisch ddj und altnordisch ggj. PBB 9/3: 545–8.
Braune, Wilhelm. (1918). Der germanische Adhortativus. PBB 43: 327–34.
Braune, Wilhelm, & Ebbinghaus, Ernst A. (1961, 1981). Gotische Grammatik. 16th and 19th
edns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Braune, Wilhelm, & Heidermanns, Frank. (2004). Gotische Grammatik: Mit Lesestücken und
Wörterverzeichnes. 20th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Braunmüller, Kurt. (2008). Observations on the origins of definiteness in ancient Germanic.
Sprachwissenschaft 33/3: 351–71.
Bréal, Michel. (1889). Premières influences de Rome sur le monde germanique. Journal des
savants 1889: 622–33, 688–97.
Bremer, Otto. (1905). Ethnographie der germanischen Stämme. In Paul (1905: 735–950).
Breyer, Gertraud. (1993). Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluss des spezifisch
onomastischen Bereiches. Leuven: Peeters.
References 575
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.
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:
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:
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
Johansson, K[arl] F[erdinand]. (1904). Nominalsammansättningar i gotiskan. In Nordiska

Studier tillegnade Adolf Noreen på hans 50-årsdag den 13 Mars 1904, af studiekamrater och
lärjungar, 455–85. Uppsala: Appelberg.
Johnsen, Sverre. (2005). The historical derivation of Gothic aba and its n- stem anomalies.
[See Stausland Johnsen.]
Jones, Asbury Wesley. (1979). Gothic final syllables: A new look at the phonological and mor-
phological developments from Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. [Excellent review of the literature.]
Jones, Howard. (2009). Aktionsart in the Old High German passive. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Jones, Oscar F. (1956). Gothic ai in inflectional syllables. Lg. 32/4: 633–40.
Jones, Oscar F. (1958a). Gothic au in inflectional syllables. Lg. 34: 33–9.
Jones, Oscar F. (1958b). Gothic iu. Lg. 34/3: 353–8.
Jones, Oscar F. (1958c). The interrogative particle -u in Germanic. Word 14/2–3: 213–23.
Jones, Oscar F. (1960). Nonsyllabic allophones of Gothic /w/. Lg. 36/4: 508–15.
Jones, Oscar F. (1962). Gothic iu and ju in transcriptions of foreign names. JEGP 61: 73–6.
Jones, Oscar F. (1963). The Wulfilian j symbol and its implications. Word 19:2: 182–92.
Jones, Oscar F. (1965). The case for a long u- phoneme in Wulfilian Gothic. Orbis 14:
393–405.
Jones-Bley, Karlene, Huld, Martin E., Della Volpe, Angela, & Robbins Dexter, Miriam (eds). (2006).
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, October
27–28, 2005. Washington DC (JIES monograph series 52): Institute for the Study of Man.
Jones-Bley, Karlene, Huld, Martin E., Della Volpe, Angela, & Robbins Dexter, Miriam (eds).
(2008). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles,
November 3–4, 2007. Washington, DC (JIES monograph series 54): Institute for the Study
of Man.
Joos, Martin. (1942). Statistical patterns in Gothic phonology. Language 18: 33–8.
Joseph, Brian. (1981). On the so-called ‘passive’ use of the Gothic active infinitive. JEGP 80/3:
369–79.
Joseph, Brian. (1982). Gothic -ba. IF 87: 166–9.
Joseph, Brian. (2016). Gothic verbal mood neutralization viewed from Sanskrit. In Gunkel
et al. (2016: 146–52).
Josephson, Folke. (1976). On the function of the Gothic preverb ga-. IF 81: 152–75.
Josephson, Folke. (2011). Allative in Indo-European. In Fruyt et al. (2011: 143–50).
Josephson, Folke, & Söhrman, Ingmar (eds). (2013). Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on
Verbs. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jülicher, Adolf, et al. (1963–76). Itala: Das neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung
nach den Handschriften . . . 2nd edn. 4 vols. Vol. 4: Johannes-Evangelium (1963). Vol. 2:
Marcus-Evangelium (1970), Vol. 1: Matthäus-Evangelium (1972). Vol. 3: Lucas-Evangelium
(1976). Berlin: De Gruyter. [The 1st edn of Matthew and Mark was seen through publication
by Walter Matzkow; Luke and John were published by Kurt Aland, who brought out the 2nd
edn of the entire Gospels.]
Junius, Franciscus, & Marshall, Thomas (eds). (1665). Quatuor D[omini] N[ostri] Iesu Christi
Evangeliorum versiones perantiquae duae, Gothica scil[icet] et Anglo-Saxonica . . . [(of the)
Four Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ two ancient versions, namely the Gothic and the
Anglo-Saxon . . . ] Dordrecht: Hendrik & Johann van Esch. [The full Latin title goes on to
explain that the Gothic codex Argenteus is edited with glossary and the Gothic, runic, and
598 References
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.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1898). Der Arrianismus [sic] des Wulfila. Zeitschrift für deutsche
5. Der codex Brixianus. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 32: 305–35.
6. Die Corintherbriefe. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 35: 433–63.
Kauffmann, Friedrich. (1911a). Zur Textgeschichte der gotischen Bibel. Zeitschrift für deutsche
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
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:
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.
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
the Germanic languages: Reflexive constructions in the ancient Germanic languages].

Kalinin: Kalininskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.
Klimov, Vasilij Vasil’evič. (1990a). Intranzitivacija v gotskom jazyke. [Intransitivation in the
Gothic language]. In Klimov (1990b: 68–80).
Klimov, Vasilij Vasil’evič. (1990b). Soprjažennost’ glagol’nyx kategorij: Sbornik naučnyx tru-
dov. [Correlation of verbal categories: A collection of scholarly works]. Kalinin: Kalininskij
gosudarstvennyj universitet.
Klinghardt, Hermann. (1877). Die Syntax der gotischen Partikel ei. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Philologie 8: 127–80, 289–329.
Kluge, Friedrich. (1879). Excurs über gotisch dd und gg: Beiträge zur Geschichte der german-
ischen Conjugation. Quellen und Forschungen 32: 127–30.
Kluge, Friedrich. (1884). Die germanische Consonantendehnung. PBB 9: 149–86.
Kluge, Friedrich. (1899, 1926). Nominale Stammbildungslehre der altgermanischen Dialekte.
2nd, 3rd edn (1st edn 1886). Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.
Kluge, Friedrich. (1906). Vorgeschichte der altgermanischen Dialekte. 2nd edn. Strasbourg:
Trübner.
Kluge, Friedrich. (1911). Die Elemente des Gotischen: Eine erste Einführung in die deutsche
Sprachwissenschaft. Strasbourg: Trübner.
Kluge, Friedrich, & Seebold, Elmar. (2002). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache.
24th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Köbler, Gerhard. (1972). Verzeichnis der lateinisch-gotischen und der gotisch-lateinischen
Entsprechungen der Bibelübersetzung. Göttingen: Musterschmidt.
Köbler, Gerhard. (1989). Gotisches Wörterbuch. 2nd edn. Leiden: Brill.
Kock, Axel. (1912). Ein Beitrag zur gotischen Lautlehre. IF 30: 244–51.
Kock, Ernst [Albin]. (1902). Zur Chronologie der gotischen ‘Brechung’. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Köhler, Artur. (1864). Über den syntaktischen Gebrauch des Dativs im Gotischen. Ph.D. dissertation,
Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen. Published Germania 11: 261–305 (1866).
Köhler, Artur. (1867). Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Infinitivs im Gothischen. Germania
12: 421–62.
Köhler, Artur. (1872). Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Optativs im Gotischen. Germanistische
Studien 1: 77–133.
Koivulehto, Jurma, & Vennemann, Theo. (1996). Der finnische Stufenwechsel und das Vernersche
Gesetz. PBB 118: 163–82.
Kokowski, Andrzej. (2007). The agriculture of the Goths between the first and fifth centuries
AD (Central and Eastern Europe—the Roman period and the early migration period).
In Barnish & Marazzi (2007: 221–36).
Kölligan, Daniel. (2002). Gotisch “hunsl” ‘Opfer’. HS/HL 115: 99–110.
Kölligan, Daniel. (2004). Wenn zwei dasselbe tun: Iterativa und Kausativa. In Kozianka et al.
(2004: 193–247).
König, Ekkehard, & Gast, Volker (eds). (2008). Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and
Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Koppitz, Alfred. (1900, 1901). Gotische Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 32: 433–63,
33: 7–45.
Korobov, Maksim, & Vinogradov, Andrey. (2016). Gotische Graffito-inschriften aus der
Bergkrim. ZfdA 145: 141–57.
602 References
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
Kremer, Julian. (1882). Behandlung der ersten Compositionsglieder im germanischen

Nominalcompositum. PBB 8/3: 371–460.
Krisch, Thomas, & Lindner, Thomas, with Crombach, Michael & Niederreiter, Stefan (eds).
(2011). Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Kroesch, Samuel. (1908). The formation of compound words in Gothic. Modern Philology 5/3:
377–82.
Krogmann, W[illy]. (1930). Got. stafs. IF 48: 268–72.
Kroonen, Guus. (2011). The Proto-Germanic n- stems: A Study in Diachronic Morphophonology.
Leiden: Rodopi.
Kroonen, Guus. (2013). Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.
Kroonen, Guus. (2017). The development of the Proto-Indo-European instrumental suffix in
Germanic. IF 122: 105–10.
Kuhlmann, Peter Alois. (1994). Die Gießener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse:
Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Berichte und Arbeiten aus der Universitätsbibliothek
und dem Universitätsarchiv Gießen 46. (Repr. as ‘Gotisch-lateinisches Bibelfragment’, in
Gotica Minora, 2002.)
Kuhn, Hans. (1934). Review of Gruber (1930). IF 52: 159–61.
Kulikowski, Michael. (2007). Rome’s Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric. Cambridge:
Kümmel, Martin Joachim. (2012). Typology and reconstruction: The consonants and vowels of
Proto-Indo-European. In Whitehead et al. (2012: 291–330).
Kümmel, Martin Joachim. (2014). Zum ‘proterokinetischen’ Ablaut. In Oettinger & Steer (2014:
164–79).
Kümmel, Martin Joachim. (2016). Das dünkt mich dunkel: Germanische etymologische
Probleme. In Hansen et al. (2016: 219–33).
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. (1964). The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. (1967). The Germanic Verschärfung. Language 43: 445–51.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. (1968). Indogermanische Grammatik, 2: Akzent, Ablaut. Heidelberg: Winter.
Lacy, Alan F. (1979). Gothic weihs, airkns and the Germanic notion of ‘holy’. JIES 7/3–4:
287–96.
Lahiri, Aditi (ed). (2000). Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology
and Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Laird, Hilda C. (1940). The heathen religion of the Goths: Inferences drawn from the vocabu-
lary of their Bible. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Laker, Neale James. (1997). The use and application of vowel gradation in the Germanic lan-
guages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bristol.
Lambdin, Thomas O. (2006). An Introduction to the Gothic Language. Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock.
Lamberterie, Charles de. (2004). Sur la syntaxe de l’adjectif en gotique: Forme courte et forme
longue à la flexion forte. In Kozianka et al. (2004: 301–26).
Lampe, Geoffrey William Hugo (ed). (1969). Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 2: The West
from the Fathers to the Reformation. (Repr. freq.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landau, David. (2006). On the reading and the interpretation of the month-line in the Gothic
calendar. TPS 104: 3–12.
604 References
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
Levin, Juliette. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachussetts

Institute of Technology.
Levin, Theodore. (2017). Palauan DOM [differential object marking] is a licensing phenomenon.
Presented at the 91st LSA Annual Meeting, Austin, TX.
Levinson, Lisa. (2007). The roots of verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
Leyen, Friedrich von der. (1908). Einführung in das Gotische. Munich: Beck.
Liberman, Anatoly. (2002). Gothic þrutsfill, OE þrustfell ‘leprosy’, and the names of some other
skin diseases in Germanic. In Brogyanyi (2002: 197–212).
Liberman, Anatoly. (2010). Verner’s Law. NOWELE 58/59: 381–425.
Lichtenheld, Adolf. (1875). Das schwache Adjectiv im Gotischen. Zeitschrift für deutsches
Alterthum nf 6: 17–43.
Lieber, Rochelle. (2009a). A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In Lieber & Štekauer
(2009: 78–104).
Lieber, Rochelle. (2009b). IE, Germanic: English. In Lieber & Štekauer (2009: 357–69).
Lieber, Rochelle, & Štekauer, Pavol (eds). (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Compounding.
Lieber, Rochelle, & Štekauer, Pavol (eds). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Derivational
Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liebeschuetz, J[ohn] H[ugo] W[olfgang] G[ideon] ‘Wolf ’. (2011). Making a Gothic history:
Does the Getica of Jordanes preserve genuinely Gothic traditions? Journal of Late Antiquity
4: 185–216.
Lindberg, Carl-Erik. (2010). Die Subjunktion þatei nach Verba Dicendi und Sentiendi im
Codex Argenteus. NOWELE 58/59: 255–68.
Linde, Carole Post van der, & Wezel, Lars van, with Roeleveld, Annelies (eds). (2007).
‘Twai tigjus jere’: Jubileumnummer van het Mededelingenblad van der vereniging van
Oudgermanisten, uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van het twintigjarig bestaan van de vereneging.
Amsterdam: Vereniging van Oudgermanisten.
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. (1962). La “Verschärfung” germanique. Studia Linguistica 16: 1–23.
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. (1967). Notes sur la particule -(u)h en gotique. Norsk Tidsskrift for
Sprogvidenskap 21: 144–51.
Lindner, Thomas. (2011–17). Komposition: Indogermanische Grammatik IV.1. Heidelberg: Winter.
Lindsay, Wallace Martin. (1894). The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds,
Stems, and Flexions. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lippi-Green, Rosina L., & Salmons, Joseph C. (eds). (1996). Germanic Linguistics: Syntactic and
Diachronic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lloyd, Albert L. (1979). Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of
Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lloyd, Albert L., & Lühr, Rosemarie. (2009+). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen.
4 vols. [to date]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Löbe <Loebe>, Julius. (1839). Beiträge zur Textberichtigung und Erklärung der Skeireins. Altenburg:
Pierer.
Loewe, Richard. (1902). Die Krimgotenfrage. IF 13: 1–84.
Loewe, Richard. (1916). Gotisch hiri. PBB 41: 295–312.
Loewe, Richard. (1922a). Der gotische Kalender. ZfdA 5/3–4: 245–90.
Loewe, Richard. (1922b). Der Wechsel von u und au in der gotischen u- Declination. PBB 46:
51–84.
606 References
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.
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
Mańczak, Witold. (1984). Origine méridionale du gotique. Diachronica 1: 79–102.

Mańczak, Witold. (1987). L’habitat primitif des Goths. Folia Linguistica Historica 7/2: 371–80.
Mańczak-Wohlfeld, Elżbieta, & Padolak, Barbara (eds). (2015). Words and Dictionaries: A
Festschrift for Professor Stanisław Stachowski on the Occasion of his 85th Birthday. Kraków:
Jagiellonian University Press.
Mankov, Alexander. (2007). Germanic etymologies: Goth. bagms, OE bēam, OI. baðmr ‘tree’.
Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 2: 375–92.
Marache, Maurice. (1960). Die gotischen verbalen ga- Komposita im Lichte einer neuen
Kategorie der Aktionsart. ZfdA 90: 1–35.
Marchand, Hans. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A
synchronic-diachronic approach. 2nd edn. Munich: Beck.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1955a). The sounds and phonemes of Wulfila’s Gothic. Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Michigan.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1955b). Der Ursprung des gotischen þorn- Zeichens. PBB 77:
490–4.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1955c). Vowel length in Gothic. General Linguistics 1: 79–88.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1956a). The ‘converse of Sievers’ Law’ and the Germanic first-
class weak verbs. Lg. 32/2: 285–7.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1956b). Dialect characteristics in our Gothic mss. Orbis 5:
141–51.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1958). The Gothic language. Orbis 7: 492–515.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1959). Les Gots ont-ils vraiment connu l’écriture runique?
In Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie Fernand Mossé in memoriam 277–91. Paris:
Didier.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1973a). The Sounds and Phonemes of Wulfila’s Gothic. The Hague:
Mouton.
Marchand, James Woodrow. (1973b). On the Gotica Veronensia. New Testament Studies
19: 465–8.
Marcq, Philippe. (1969). Un point particulier du système des prépositions spatiales du gotique:
Les rapports entre faur, faura; wiþra; afar, hindar. In Valentin & Zink (1969: 209–20).
Marić, Niko, & Turković, Slađan. (2008). Der gotische Optativ und seine früh- so wie neu-
hochdeutschen Entsprechungen im neuen Testament. Zagreber Germanistische Beiträge
17: 147–66.
Markey, Thomas Lloyd. (1970). A note on Germanic directional and place adverbs. Studia
Linguistica 24: 73–86.
Markey, Thomas Lloyd. (1972). Gothic imperatives in -au. Studia Linguistica 26: 42–7.
Markey, Thomas Lloyd. (2001). A tale of two helmets: Negau A and B inscriptions. Journal of
Indo-European Studies 29: 69–172.
Markey, Thomas Lloyd. (2012). Hlewagastir exposed. In Harris et al. (2012: 91–107).
Marold, C[arl Ernst]. (1875). Futurum und futurische Ausdrücke im Gotischen. Wissenschaftliche
Monatsblätter 3: 169–76.
Marold, Carl [Ernst]. (1881a–1883). Kritische Untersuchungen über den Einfluss des Lateinischen
auf die gotische Bibelübersetzung. Germania 26: 129–72 (1881), 27: 23–60 (1882), 28: 50–85
(1883).
Marold, Carl [Ernst]. (1881b). Über die gotischen Konjunktionen, welche οὖν [oũn] und [gár]
vertreten. Königsberg: Hartung.
References 609
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.
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.
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:
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
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
Plate, Rudolf. (1931). Geschichte der gotischen Literatur. Berlin: Dümmler.

Pollak, Hans W. (1912). Zur Stellung der Attributes im Urgermanischen. (Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte des suffigierten Artikels im Altnordischen und der germanischen Kasuskomposita.)
IF 30: 283–302.
Pollak, Hans W[olfgang]. (1929). Zur Wiedergabe des griechischen Perfekts im Gotischen.
Studia Neophilologica 2: 1–27.
Pollak, Hans W[olfgang]. (1964). Zu den Funktionen des gotischen Präteritums. PBB 86:
25–61.
Pollak, Hans W[olfgang]. (1971). Über ga- beim gotischen Verb. PBB 93: 1–28.
Pollak, Hans W[olfgang]. (1972). Zur Überlieferung der gotischen Bibel. Zeitschrift für deutsche
Pollak, Hans W[olfgang]. (1974). Über gotische Verben mit doppeltem ga-. PBB 96: 12–16.
Pollak, Hans W[olfgang]. (1975). Zur Methode der Ermittlung von Bedeutung und Funktion
der altgermanischen Vorsilbe ga-. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 76: 130–7.
Polomé, Edgar C. (1995). Diachronic stratification of the Germanic vocabulary. In Rauch &
Carr (1995: 243–64).
Polomé, Edgar C., & Justus, Carol (eds). (1999). Language Change and Typological Variation: In
Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the Occasion of his 83rd Birthday. 2 vols. Washington DC:
Institute for the Study of Man.
Pons-Sanz, Sara M. (2017). Reassessing the semantic history of OE brēad / ME brēd.
English Language and Linguistics 21/1: 47–67.
Pons-Sanz, Sara M. (Forthcoming). Legal vocabulary in early English translations of the Bible:
A study of Johannine terms. In Terezi & di Sciascia (Forthcoming).
Porterfield, Allen W. (1934). Perceptual sense in Gothic. JEGP 33/2: 205–18.
Pospelova, Ksenija Vadimovna. (2017). Kontrastivnyj analiz gotskix i drevnefrizskix kompozitov
[Contrastive analysis of Gothic and Old Frisian compounds]. In Jakovenko (2017: 232–41).
Poulter, Andrew. (2007). Invisible Goths within and beyond the Roman Empire. Bulletin of the
Institute of Classical Studies (Special Issue, Suppl. 591) 50: 169–82.
Probert, Philomen. (2006). Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects,
and Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Probert, Philomen, & Willi, Andreas (eds). (2012). Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Prokosch, Eduard. (1939). A Comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society
of America. (Repr. 1966.)
Pronk, Tijmen. (2015). Singulative n- stems in Indo-European. TPS 113/3: 327–48.
Pudić, Ivan. (1957). Prefiks ga- u gotskom jeziku [The prefix gain the Gothic language].
Belgrade: University of Belgrade. [Pp. 392–7 contain a German summary.]
Pudić, Ivan. (1971). Gotski jezik i istorijska gramatika [Gothic language and historical gram-
mar]. Belgrade: University of Belgrade.
Pylkkänen, Liina. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Quak, Arend. (2014). Review of Kotin (2012). Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 71:
268–71.
Quinlin, Daniel P. (2007). Wulfila’s (mis)translation of Philippians 2:6. IF 112: 208–14.
Rabofski, Birgit. (1990). Motion und Markiertheit: Synchrone und sprachhistorische Evidenz aus
dem Gotischen, Althochdeutschen und Altenglischen für eine Widerlegung der Theorien zur
Markiertheit. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
620 References
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
Schaffner, Stefan. (2015). Zu den Wortbildungstypen der altgermanischen Völkernamen mit

n- Suffix. MSS 69: 145–89.
Schaubach, A[dolf]. (1879). Das erste Capitel des Evangeliums des Lucas nach Vulfila und Luther:
Über das Verhältniss der gotischen Bibelübersetzung des Vulfila zu der Lutherischen mit
Zugrundelegung von Evang. Luc. 1. Meiningen: Druck der Keyssner’schen Hofbuchdruckerei.
Scherer, Philip. (1954). Aspect in Gothic. Lg. 30/2: 211–23.
Scherer, Philip. (1964). The theory of the function of the Gothic preverb ga-. Word 20/2:
222–45.
Scherer, Philip. (1968). Analysis of Gothic -uh. Glossa 2: 28–45.
Scherer, Philip. (1970). Tense modification in Gothic. In Lugton & Saltzer (1970: 88–94).
Scherer, Philip. (1978). The preverbal Gothic ga-. In Jazayery et al. (1978: iii. 209–18).
Schindler, Jochem. (1967). Zu hethitisch nekuz. KZ 81: 290–303.
Schindler, Jochem. (1969). Die idg. Wörter für ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei’. Die Sprache 15: 144–67.
Schindler, Jochem. (1972). L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens. BSL 67: 31–8.
Schindler, Jochem. (1975). L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r/n. BSL 70: 1–10.
Schindler, Wolfgang, & Untermann, Jürgen (eds). (1999). Grippe, Kamm, and Eulenspiegel:
Festschrift für Elmar Seebold zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schirmer, Carl. (1874). Über den syntaktischen Gebrauch des Optativs im Gotischen. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Marburg.
Schlerath, Bernfried. (1995). Bemerkungen zur Geschichte der -es- Stämme im Westgermanischen.
In Hettrich et al. (1995: 249–64).
Schmeja, Hans. (1998). Gotisch bilaif. PBB 120/3: 355–67.
Schmid, Hans Ulrich. (1998). -lîh- Bildungen vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Herkunft,
Entwicklung und Funktion eines althochdeutschen Suffixes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Schmidt, Gernot. (1962). Studien zum germanischen Adverb. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Berlin.
Schmidt, Gernot. (1978). Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen Personalpronomina.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schmidt-Wartenberg, Hans Max. (1893). Gothic emendation. Modern Language Notes 8/3:
185–6.
Schmierer, Richard J. (1977). Theoretical implications of Gothic and Old English phonology.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Schrader, Karl. (1874). Über den syntactischen Gebrauch des Genitivs in der gotischen Sprache.
Halle an der Saale: Waisenhaus.
Schrijver, Peter. (2014). Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages. New York:
Routledge.
Schröder, Edward. (1910). Busbecqs krimgotisches Vokabular. Nachrichten der königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philol.-hist. Klasse: 6–10.
Schröder, Edward. (1925). Got. kintus. KZ 53: 80–2.
Schröder, Werner. (1957). Die Gliederung des gotischen Passivs. PBB 79: 1–24.
Schröder, Werner. (1957–8). ‘Germanisches’ werden-Passiv und ‘christliches’ sein-Passiv bei
Wulfila. ZfdA 88/2: 101–15.
Schubert, Hans-Jürgen. (1968). Die Erweiterung des bibelgotischen Wortschatzes mit Hilfe der
Methoden der Wortbildungslehre. Munich: Hueber.
Schuhmann, Roland. (2016). A linguistic analysis of the Codex Bononiensis. In Auer & De
Vaan (2016: 55–72).
References 625
Schuhmann, Roland. (2018a). Review of Feuillet (2014). NOWELE 71/2: 257–71.

Schuhmann, Roland. (2018b). Synchronic and diachronic comments on some Gothic words.
In Ratkus (to appear).
Schuhmann, Roland. (Forthcoming). Gotische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Reichert. https://
www.academia.edu/9348960/Gotische_Grammatik_Teil_A_-_Endfassung; https://www.
academia.edu/9596933/Gotische_Grammatik_Teil_B1_-_Endfassung; https://www.
academia.edu/3460579/Gotische_Grammatik_-_Enlargement_Starke_Verben; and https://
www.academia.edu/3466323/Gotische_Grammatik_-_Enlargement_Besondere_
Verbalbildungen.
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1905). Griechische Lehnworte im Gotischen. Sitzungsberichte der königli-
chen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1905: 726–57.
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1907a). Zur gotischen Grammatik. KZ 40: 563–5.
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1907b). Gotica. KZ 41: 165–75.
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1908). Wortbrechung in den gotischen Handschriften. Sitzungsberichte der
königlichen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Sitzung der philosophisch-historischen
Classe) 1908: 610–24.
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1909). Gotica. KZ 42: 317–30.
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1924a). Personalpronomen und Subjektausdruck im Gotischen. In Horn
(1924: 92–109).
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1924b). Got. liuta und weiha. KZ 52/3–4: 193.
Schulze, Wilhelm. (1927). Gotica. KZ 55: 113–37.
Schumacher, Stefan. (1998). Eine alte Crux, eine neue Hypothese: Gotisch iddja, altenglisch
ēode. Die Sprache 40: 179–201 (2001).
Schumacher, Stefan. (2000). The Historical Morphology of the Welsh Verbal Noun. Maynooth:
Dept. of Old Irish, National University of Ireland.
Schütte, Gudmund. (1933). Spätgotische Schlußvokale. ZfdA 70: 121–4.
Schwahn, Friedrich. (1873). Die gotischen Adjectiv-Adverbien. Bonn: Georgi.
Schwarcz, Andreas. (1992). Die Goten in Pannonien und auf dem Balkan nach dem Ende des
Hunnenreiches bis zum Italienzug Theoderichs des Großen. Mitteilungen des Instituts für
Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 100: 50–83.
Schweiger, Günter (ed). (2005). Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Taimering: VWT.
Schwerdt, Judith. (2001). Zur Bedeutung des -nan- Suffixes der gotischen schwachen Verben.
PBB 123: 175–210.
Schwink, Frederick Ward. (2004). The Third Gender: Studies in the Origin and History of
Germanic Grammatical Gender. Heidelberg: Winter.
Schwyzer, Eduard. (1932). Got. let und griech. . KZ 60: 139–44.
Seebold, Elmar. (1967a). Sind got. nawis und sutis i- stämmige Akjektive? PBB 89: 42–53.
Seebold, Elmar. (1967b). Die Vertretung von idg. guh im Germanischen. KZ 81: 104–33.
Seebold, Elmar. (1968a). Die Verteilung der gotischen Suffixe zur Bildung von Akjektiv-
Abstrakta. PBB 90: 1–15.
Seebold, Elmar. (1968b). Mizelle: Das grammatische Geschlecht von baurgs-waddjus und
grundu-waddjus. PBB 90: 216.
Seebold, Elmar. (1968c). Erhaltung und Schwund des Kompositionsvokals im Gotischen. KZ
82: 69–97.
Seebold, Elmar. (1970). Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen starken
Verben. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.
626 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:
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
Skeat, Walter W. (1868). Mœso-Gothic Glossary, With an Introduction, an Outline of Mœso-

Gothic Grammar, and a List of Anglo-Saxon and Old and Modern English Words Etymologically
Connected with Mœso-Gothic. London: Asher.
Skeat, Walter W. (ed). (1871–7). The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old
Mercian Versions: Synoptically Arranged, with Collations Exhibiting All the Readings of All the
MSS; Together With the Early Latin Version as Contained in the Lindisfarne MS, Collated with
the Latin Version in the Rushworth MS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skladny, Andreas. (1873). Über das gotische Passiv. Neisse: Bär.
Small, G[eorge] W[illiam]. (1924). The Comparison of Inequality: The Semantics and Syntax of the
Comparative Particle in English. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University; Greifswald: Abel.
Smirnickaja, Ol’ga Aleksandrovna. (2014). Ot slova k smyslu: Vul’fila kak perevodčik gotskogo
Svjaščennogo Pisanija [From word to sense: Wulfila as the translator of the Gothic Holy
Scripture]. Stephanos 2/4: 10–41.
Smith, Henry. (1994). ‘Dative sickness’ in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
12/4: 675–736.
Smith, Laura Catharine. (2004). Cross-level interactions in West Germanic phonology and
morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Smyth, Herbert Weir, & Messing, Gordon. (1956). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. (Repr. 1963.)
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (1993). On Gothic wu- adjectives. HS/HL 106: 137–43.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2002a). Naples, Arezzo, Verona. Gotica Minora: Miscellanea de lin-
guae Ulfilae collecta 1: 1–2, ed. Christian T. Petersen. Hanau: Syllabus.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2002b). Gotica Veronensia. Gotica Minora: Miscellanea de linguae
Ulfilae collecta 1: 3–6. Ed. Christian T. Petersen.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2002c). The i- stem adjectives in Gothic. IF 107: 250–67.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2003). The Gothic text of codex Gissensis. Gotica Minora 2: 1–20:
https://www.academia.edu/871989/The_Gothic_Text_of_Codex_Gissensis.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2004). Gothic weinuls or weinnas? HS/HL 117/2: 303–11.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2006). Wulfila and Oddur Gottskálksson. Gotica Minora 6: 1–4:
https://www.academia.edu/871926/Wulfila_and_Oddur_Gottsk%C3%A1lksson.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2007). The consequence of syncretism. In Babenko & Zeleneckij
(2007: 92–6).
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2009a). Ostgermanische Morphologie/East-Germanic morphology.
In Fritz & Gippert (2009: 147–67). https://www.academia.edu/758308/Ostger-manische_
Morphologie.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2009b). The ‘Vandal’ epigram. Filologia Germanica / Germanic
Philology 1: 181–214. https://www.academia.edu/758303/The_Vandal_Epigram.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2010). Uns/Unsis and colloquial Gothic. NOWELE 58/59: 301–22.
https://www.academia.edu/758310/Uns_unsis_and_Colloquial_Gothic.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2011a). The Runic inscriptions from Kovel and Pietroassa. In
Lendinara et al. (2011: 233–43). https://www.academia.edu/758283/The_Runic_Inscriptions_
from_Kovel_and_Pietroassa.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2011b). Gothic «ggw»*. Studia Linguistica 128: 145–54. https://
www.academia.edu/1332278/Gothic_ggw_.
Snædal, Magnús Hreinn. (2013a). A Concordance to Biblical Gothic, Vol. 1: Introduction, Texts;
Vol. 2: Concordance. 3rd edn. 2 vols. Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press.
628 References
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
Stearns, MacDonald, Jr. (1989). Das Krimgotische. In Beck (1989: 173–91).

Steer, Thomas. (2014). Zum Kontrastakzent und Wurzelablaut thematischer Kollektiva des
Urindogermanischen. In Neri & Schuhmann (2014: 333–51).
Stefanescu-Draganesti, Virgiliu. (1982). A new look at the socio-linguistic and historical
implications of the Latin borrowings in Wulfila’s Gothic Bible (4th century A.D.). Forum
Linguisticum 6/3: 265–9.
Steinkrüger, Patrick O., and Krifka, Manfred (eds). (2009). On Inflection. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Štekauer, Pavol, Valera, Salvador, & Körtvélyessy, Lívia. (2012). Word-Formation in the World’s
Language: A Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stempel, Reinhard. (2004). Zur Geschichte und Typologie des bestimmten Artikels: Der Fall
des Deutschen. In Kozianka et al. (2004: 551–65).
Sternemann, Reinhard. (1995). Gedanken zum ‘Artikel’ im Gotischen. In Brand & Hünecke
(1995: 151–72).
Stifter, David. (2010). The Proto-Germanic Shift *ā > *ō and early Germanic linguistic contacts.
HS/HL 122: 268–83.
Stiles, Patrick V. (1984). Studies in the history of the Germanic r- stems. D.Phil. thesis, University
of Oxford.
Stiles, Patrick V. (1985). eME (AB) wes: A reflex of IE *wes- ‘graze, tend (livestock)’? KZ
98: 295–301.
Stiles, Patrick V. (1985–6). The fate of the numeral ‘4’ in Germanic. NOWELE 6: 81–104,
7: 3–27, 8: 3–25.
Stiles, Patrick V. (1988). Gothic nominative singular brōþar ‘brother’ and the reflexes of Indo-
European long vowels in the final syllables of Germanic polysyllables. TPS 86/2: 115–43.
Stiles, Patrick V. (2004). Consumer issues: Beowulf 3115a and Germanic ‘bison’. In Penney
(2004: 461–73).
Stiles, Patrick V. (2005). A letter in a letter: A textual note on Busbecq’s ‘Crimean Gothic’ can-
tilena. Gotica Minora 4. http://www.gotica.de/minora.html.
Stiles, Patrick V. (2010). The Gothic extended forms of the dental preterit endings. NOWELE
58/59: 343–66.
Stiles, Patrick V. (2013). The pan-West Germanic isoglosses and the sub-relationships of West
Germanic to other branches. NOWELE 66: 5–38.
Stiles, Patrick V. (2016). Eine Bemerkung zu Benennungsmotiven. In Neri et al. (2016: 443–5).
Stiles, Patrick V. (2017). The comparative method, internal reconstruction, areal norms and the West
Germanic third person pronoun. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 77: 410–41.
Stiles, Patrick V. (2018). Go. jains, OE geon*, OHG jenēr, and congeners. In Ratkus (to appear).
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia, & Urdze, Aina. (2006). On Comitatives and Related Categories:
A Typological Study with Special Focus on the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stolzenburg, [Andreas August] Hans. (1905). Zur Übersetzungstechnik des Wulfila untersucht
auf Grund der Bibelfragmente des Codex Argenteus. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie
37: 145–93, 352–92. (Also published separately: Halle an der Saale: Waisenhaus.)
Strässler, Jürg (ed). (1998). Tendenzen europäischer Linguistik. (Akten des 31. Linguistischen
Kolloquiums, Bern 1996.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Streadbeck, Arval L. (1978). Permutations of class I strong verbs. Linguistics Special issue 41–71.
Streitberg, Wilhelm August. (1891). Perfective und imperfective Actionsart im Germanischen.
PBB 15: 70–177. [The article is dated 1889.]
630 References
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. (1910, rev. 2nd edn 1919). Die gotische Bibel, II: Gotisch–griechisch–
deutsches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.
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
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1932). Gothic notes. AJP 53: 53–60.

Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1933a). The temporal dative as a factor in the development of the
dative absolute construction. AJP 54: 341–3.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1933b). Gotica. The Germanic Review 8: 206–12.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1933c). Gothic syntactical notes. AJP 54/4: 340–52.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1936). Gothic miscellanies. AJP 57: 271–85.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1937). Gothic semantic notes. JEGP 36/2: 176–82.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1938). Concerning Gothic intransitive verbs. AJP 59/4: 460–70.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1940). Gothic notes. JEGP 39/4: 456–61.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1941). A note on the semantic development of Old Norse fría : frjá
< Gothic frijon ‘to love’. Scandinavian Studies 16: 194–6.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1945a). Notes on Gothic morphology. PMLA 60: 1–9.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1945b). Gothic syntactical notes. Modern Language Notes 60/2: 104–6.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1945c). Notes on the text of the Gothic Bible. JEGP 44: 62–5.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1947a). Gothic morphological notes. JEGP 46: 92–7.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1947b). Gothic syntactical notes. JEGP 46/4: 407–12.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1949). Notes on certain Gothic forms. The Germanic Review
24/2: 136–42.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1950). Certain Gothic cruxes. JEGP 49: 78–87.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1951). Miscellaneous Gothic notes. The Germanic Review 26: 50–9.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1952). Comments on certain Gothic irregularities. The Germanic
Review 27: 50–5.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1953). Gothic miscellanea. The Germanic Review 28: 55–62.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1954). Notes on Gothic forms. Lg. 30/4: 448–52.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1957a). Postconsonantal *w in the two Gothic types skadus ‘shadow’
and triggws ‘faithful’. The Germanic Review 32/4: 314–18.
Sturtevant, Albert Morey. (1957b). Verner’s Law in the preterit tense of the Gothic reduplicat-
ing verb slepan. Modern Language Notes 72/8: 561–3.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1930). Neuter pronouns referring to words of different gender or num-
ber. 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], 16–24.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1940). The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA:
Linguistic Society of America.
Stutterheim, C[ornelis] F[erdinand] P[etrus]. (1968). Gothic and phonology. Lingua 21: 443–54.
Stutz, Elfriede. (1966). Gotische Literaturdenkmäler. Stuttgart: Metzler. [A rich resource with
references on every topic.]
Stutz, Elfriede. (1971). Ein gotisches Evangelienfragment in Speyer. KZ 85: 85–95.
Stutz, Elfriede. (1972). Das Neue Testament in gotischer Sprache. In Aland (1972: 375–402).
Stutz, Elfriede. (1973). Fragmentum Spirense—verso. KZ 87: 1–15.
Stutz, Elfriede. (1985). Der Quellenwert des Gotischen für die sprachgeschichtliche Beschreibung
der älteren Sprachstufen des Deutschen. In Besch et al. (1985: ii. 962–75).
Stutz, Elfriede. (1991). Die noch ungelösten Rätsel des Speyerer Wulfila-Fragments. Bibliothek
und Wissenschaft 25: 1–14.
Suh, Chang-Kook. (1997). Consonant geminates: Towards a theory of integrity and inalterabil-
ity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.
632 References
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:
Wackernagel, Jacob, & Debrunner, Albert. (1954). Altindische Grammatik: Band II,2. Göttingen:
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.
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
Wienold, Götz. (1967). On umlaut in Gothic. Orbis 16: 185–96.

Wienold, Götz. (1968). The pre-Gothic monophthongizations and Wulfila’s graphemic system.
Folia Linguistica 3: 134–44.
Wienold, Götz. (1969). The pre-Gothic monophthongizations and Wulfila’s graphemic system.
Folia Linguistica 3/1–2: 134–44.
Wienold, Götz. (1970). On phonological ambiguity. In Hála et al. (1970: 1019–23).
Willis, David W. E. (2007). Specifier-to-head reanalyses in the complementizer domain:
Evidence from Welsh. Transactions of the Philological Society 105: 432–80.
Willis, David W. E., Lucas, Christopher, & Breitbarth, Anne (eds). (2013). The Development
of Negation in the Languages of Europe, Vol. 1: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Willmott, Jo. (2007). The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilmanns, Wilhelm. (1896–1906). Deutsche Grammatik: Gotisch, Alt- Mittel- und Neuhochdeutsch.
Vol. 1. Lautlehre. 2nd edn (1897). Vol. 2. Wortbildung (1896). Vol. 3. Flexion. 1st/2nd edn
(1906). Strasbourg: Trübner.
Wimmer, Ludvig Frands Adalbert. (1887). Die Runenschrift. Berlin: Weidmann.
Winkler, Heinrich. (1896). Germanische Casussyntax. Berlin: Dümmler.
Wissmann, Wilhelm. (1932). Nomina postverbalia in den altgermanischen Sprachen, nebst einer
Voruntersuchung über deverbative ō-Verba, pt. 1. Deverbative ō-Verba. KZ supplement 11.
Wissmann, Wilhelm. (1977). Zum Adjektivum in den germanischen Sprachen. Sprachwissenschaft
2: 93–112.
Wodtko, Dagmar S., Irslinger, Britta & Schneider, Carolin (eds). (2008). Nomina im indoger-
manischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.
Wolf, Arthur. (1915). Das Präfix uz- in Gotischen und im deutschen Verbum. Breslau: Favork.
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2006). Figurae etymologicae in Gothic. Oxford University Working Papers
in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics 11: 207–14.
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2011). Gothic dependence on Greek: Evidence from nominal compounds.
In Krisch & Lindner (2011: 616–21).
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2013). The Skeireins: A neglected text. Studia Patristica 64: 127–31.
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2014). Germanic language and Germanic Homoianism. In Berndt &
Steinacher (2014: 193–200).
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2016). The Bologna fragments and Homoianism. In Auer & De Vaan
(2016: 99–109).
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2017). The Gothic palimpsest of Bologna. Studia Patristica 92: 205–8.
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2018a). The relevance of certain Semiticisms in the Gothic New Testament.
NOWELE 71/2.
Wolfe, Brendan N. (2018b). Nominal compounds. In Ratkus (to appear).
Wolfe, Brendan N. (Forthcoming). Diminutives. Transactions of the Philological Society.
Wolfram, Herwig. (1975). Gotische Studien II: Die terwingische Stammesverfassung und das
Bibelgotische (I). Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 83/3: 289–324.
Wolfram, Herwig. (1976). Gotische Studien III: Die terwingische Stammesverfassung und das
Bibelgotische (II). Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 84/3: 239–61.
Wolfram, Herwig. (1979). The Goths in Aquitaine. German Studies Review 2/2: 153–68.
Wolfram, Herwig. (2004). Die Germanen. Munich: Beck.
Wolfram, Herwig. (2005a). Die Goten und ihre Geschichte. 2nd edn. Munich: Beck.
Wolfram, Herwig. (2005b). Gotische Studien: Volk und Herrschaft im frühen Mittelalter.
Munich: Beck.
640 References
Wollmann, Alfred. (1990). Unterschungen zu den frühen lateinischen Lehnwörtern im Altenglischen:

Phonologie und Datierung. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
Wolmar, Gordon. (2015). Gotiska verbalprefix som markörer av särdraget State or Change of
State: En förberedande undersökning. M.A. thesis, Uppsala University.
Wood, Francis Asbury. (1895). Vol. 1. Verner’s Law in Gothic. Vol. 2. The Reduplicating Verbs in
Germanic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, Francis Asbury. (1923). Morphological notes. Studies in Philology 20: 99–109.
Wood, Francis Asbury. (1926). Indo-European pt-: Germanic f-. The Germanic Review 1: 309–13.
Wood, James Christopher. (2002). Tense and aspect in Gothic: A statistical comparison of the
Greek and Gothic versions of St. Mark’s Gospel. M.A. thesis, Memorial University of
Newfoundland.
Woodard, Roger D. (ed). (2004). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodcock, Eric Charles. (1958). A New Latin Syntax. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. (Repr. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1985, 1987.)
Woodhouse, Robert. (2000a). The origin of Thurneysen’s Law: A detailed analysis of the
evidence. PBB 122: 187–229.
Woodhouse, Robert. (2000b). Gothic þl- : fl- variation is due to ablaut, not interdialectal
borrowing. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5: 145–7.
Woodhouse, Robert. (2002). Sequence in the older futhark. Särtryck ur Arkiv för Nordisk
Filologi 117: 73–83.
Woodhouse, Robert. (2003). Gothic siuns, the domain of Verner’s Law and the relative
chronology of Grimm’s, Verner’s, and Kluge’s Laws in Germanic. PBB 125/2: 207–22.
Woodhouse, Robert. (2011a). Lubotsky’s and Beekes’ Laws, PIE *(H)r-, *(H)i(V)-, *a and some
other laryngeal matters. Studia Etymologica Cracovensia 16: 151–87.
Woodhouse, Robert. (2011b). PIE *(H)nas- or (H)n(e)H(e)s- ‘Nose’. IF 116: 29–41.
Woolford, Ellen. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry
37: 111–30.
Wrede, Ferdinand. (1886). Über die Sprache der Wandalen: Ein Beitrag zur germanischen
Namen- und Dialektforschung. Strasbourg: Trübner.
Wrede, Ferdinand. (1891). Über die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien. Strasbourg: Trübner.
Wrede, Ferdinand. (1920). Stamm-Heyne’s Ulfilas, oder die uns erhaltenen Denkmäler der
gotischen Sprache. Text, Grammatik, Wörterbuch. 13th/14th edn. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Wrenn, C[harles]. L[eslie]. (1929). Gothic usqiman: Donum natalicium 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, 492–5. Nijmegen-Utrecht:
N. V. Dekker & Van de Vegt.
Wright, Joseph. (1954). Grammar of the Gothic language: And the Gospel of St. Mark, Selections
from the Other Gospels, and the Second Epistle to Timothy: With Notes and Glossary. 2nd edn.
With a supplement to the grammar by Olive Lenore Sayce. Oxford: Clarendon.
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ulrich. (1975). Der gotische Vokalismus. Acta Linguistica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 25/3–4: 263–338.
Yates, Anthony D. (2017). Lexical accent in Cupeño, Hittite, and Indo-European. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California Los Angeles.
Yoon, Hyejoon. (2005). A study of the terms for ‘father’ in Gothic. Language Research 41/4:
931–48.
References 641
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
*agjan ainlif* 93, 94, 321

af-agjan*, af-agiþs* (af-agid-) ainoho 372, 373, 554
*in-agjan, in-agida 206, 227, 264, 271 ains, ain / ainata, aina 67, 93f., 110, 120, 125, 147,
aglait- 292, 333 148, 151, 157, 163, 166, 171, 172,
aglaitei 325, 333, 349, 559 227, 241, 271, 289, 333, 353, 366,
aglaitgastalds 292, 295, 302 367f., 390, 393, 410, 428, 430, 457,
aglaiti* 292, 333, 349 480, 489, 503, 524, 548, 553
aglaitiwaurdei 292 ains izwara 125, 128
agliþa* 330 ains sums 125
agljan* (agljai) ainz-u 226
us-agljan* (us-agljai) 153 rodida sis ains 125
aglo 126, 167, 337 ainshun, ainhun, ainohun 47, 70, 90f., 127, 129,
aglus* 146, 236 148, 166, 183, 203, 221, 251, 439,
aha 148, 273 450, 467, 485, 508, 539, 554
ahaks 156 ainnohun 90
ahma (ahman-, ahmin-) 116, 119, 120, 123, 130, ainishun ƕis 90f.
152, 162, 172–4, 218, 239, 330, 345, aipiskaupei* 131, 326, 456
353, 364, 371, 415, 422, 433, 442, aipiskaupus 326, 411
451, 488, 517, 548 aipistula*, aípistaúle 3, 40, 416
ahmeins*, ahmein, ahmeina* 371 air 101, 292, 524
ahtau 5, 93 airis 101
ahtaudogs 203 airkniþa 123, 329, 488
ahtautehund 93 airkns 185, 329, 488
ahtuda* 96 airþa 65, 110, 113, 115, 163, 195, 236, 237, 247, 252,
aƕa 117, 218, 337, 474, 475, 501, 524 253, 259, 370, 384, 410, 429, 430,
†aibr (v. libr) 443, 476, 480, 484, 497, 498, 524
aiffaþa 29 airþa managa 479, 498
aigan*, aihta, aihtedun 113f., 170, 208f., 210f., airþos waurstwja 123, 284, 308
244, 438 diupaizos airþos 480, 497, 500
áih, áigum / áihum 31, 210 airþakunds* 306, 484
aigands 147, 210 airþeins 156, 370, 484
fair-aihan 131, 208f., 210 airus 486, 488, 524
aigin (acc) 126, 438, 460 airzei* 332
aihtron 418 airzeis* 331
sat aihtronds ~ sat . . . du aihtron 418 airziþa (aírziþa) 36, 130, 331, 332
aihts* (áiht-) 504 airzjan* 331
aiƕatundi* 300 aiþei 104, 145, 212, 221, 229, 252, 463, 524, 557
*aikan aiþs* 255
af-aikan, af-aiaik 188f., 245, 384, 413, 438, 1.aiþþau ‘or’ 29, 38, 185, 252, 261, 278, 385, 430,
458, 523 462, 463, 488, 524, 537, 557
aikklesjo 3, 111, 113, 135, 148, 552 2.aiþþau ‘or else, otherwise’ 507, 524
aikklesjo gudis libandins 114 3.aiþþau ‘although, but; then, in that case’ 98, 457,
ainabaur* 300, 322, 372 507, 524, 557
ainaha 71, 77, 300, 372, 373 aiw 51, 91, 101, 441
ainamundiþa 302 aiw ni swa gaseƕun 552
*ainamunds 302, 304 aiwaggeli 115, 165, 349
ainfalþaba 165 aiwaggelista 14
ainfalþei* 327 aiwaggeljan*, aiwaggelida 16
ainfalþs 302, 322 aiwaggeljo 3, 49f., 88, 260, 349, 505
ainƕarjizuh, ainƕarjatoh (acc), ainƕarjoh ai-wag-gel-jo 9, 46, 49
(acc) 89, 393, 495, 506 aiweins* 71, 123, 277, 371, 438, 503
aiwiski* 349, 377 *allawers 297

aiwiskon* 377, 378 allis 67, 101, 122, 128, 262, 414, 419, 457, 557
aiwlaugia* 49 alls, all / allata, alla 67, 70, 71, 88, 89, 110, 120, 126,
aiws* 58, 117,132, 339, 371, 487, 525 144, 148, 151, 152, 156, 157, 159, 162,
aiwins 58 163, 164, 171, 172, 173, 184, 213, 217,
du aiwa 19, 242, 450, 486 218, 231, 237, 239, 241, 244, 247,
in aiwins 19, 476 252, 256–8, 260, 272, 273, 275,
und aiwa 253 289, 292, 327, 335, 356, 387, 391,
und aiwins 19 392, 393, 404, 413, 423, 424, 425,
aiwxaristia* 24, 49 427, 429, 455, 472, 477, 483, 489,
aizasmiþa 285, 319 495, 500, 506, 515, 523, 525, 530, 554
ajukdūþs* 339 allata 49, 68, 69, 71, 106, 147, 162, 164, 168, 170,
in ajukdūþ 19, 339 424, 430, 561
ak 276, 278, 371, 384, 385, 416, 419, 430, 453, 473, all dagis 506
487, 503, 504, 507, 517, 525, 564 alla so managei 105, 126, 256, 327, 478, 497, 500
akei 200, 213, 391, 465, 485, 494, 502, 507, 525, 544 allwaldands 311
aket(s?)* / akeit(s?)* 35, 171 alt (Crim.) 4, 365
akran 46, 125, 127, 166, 199, 247, 315, 368, 384, 425, alþeis 4, 68, 221, 365
463, 472, 480, 498, 500, 501, 515, 525 alþiza 68
akranalaus 315 amen 430, 476, 538
akrs 44, 58, 117, 174, 237, 253, 525, 558 an 507, 525f.
ala- (= alla-) 320 an ƕas 507, 526
alabalstraun (acc) 117 ana 236f., 266, 498, 499, 526
alabrunsts* 300 anabusns 88, 105, 130, 165, 167, 256
alakjo 100 anafilh (acc) 115, 132, 203
alamans* 292 anafulhano (v. ana-filhan)
alamoþs* (alamod-) 300, 483, 499 anahaims* 72, 303
alaþarba 308 analaugniba 100
alds* 183, 333 analeiko 317
þo nu ald 545 anaminds* 300, 321, 336
alew* 2, 51, 52, 167, 285 ananiujiþa* 329
alewabagms 285, 319 anaqiss 16, 294
alews* (alewj-) anasiuns* 341
alewjo 55, 73 anastodeins 220, 505
alhs 109, 263, 283, 321 af/fram/us anastodeinai 255
alja 257, 266 anaþaima 412
aljakuns 302f., 306, 525 anawairþs*, anawairþ
aljaleiko 317, 525 þize anawairþane 77
aljaleikodos* <aljaleikaidos> 317 and 237f.
aljaleikos 317 and- 321
aljan 368, 525 anda- 321
aljanon 207 andbeit 213
in-aljanon* 206 andahait (acc) 141
aljar 97 andalauni (acc) 165, 292
aljaþ 97 andanahti 300, 321
aljaþro 97 andaneiþa* 148
aljis* 252, 525 andanems*, andanem 553
allandjo 100 andanumts
allaþro 97 andanumtais wairþ 120
allawaurstwa* 297, 307, 308f. andastaua 321, 453
allawerei* 297 andaþāhts 321, 372, 510
andaugi 300, 321 arwjo 100

andaugiba 100 asans 122, 212
andaugjo 100 asiluqairnus 285
andawaurdi 300 asilus* 27, 225, 376
andbahti 241, 337, 349, 517 assarjus* 145
andbahtjan 149 asts 454
andbahts 144, 170, 242, 349, 488 at 238f., 252, 394
andeis (andj-) 58, 247, 253, 260, 315, 448 hausides at mis 247
andhuleins* 195, 244 -ata 18
andilaus* / andalaus* 315, 319 ataþni* 292, 321, 322
andizuh 524 atta 29, 30, 61, 65, 75, 109, 115, 152, 154, 159, 163,
andwairþi 255 166, 168, 170, 171, 212, 227, 229, 235,
in andwairþja 262 236, 239, 247, 251, 252, 279, 307, 433,
anno* 154 440, 473, 476, 501, 526, 537, 557
ansteigs 146 aþþan (aþ-þan) 240, 288, 475, 512, 526
ansts 76, 120, 124, 135, 159, 166, 173, 195, 213, 242, aþþan sweþauh jabai 507, 554
251, 371, 414 aþþan þan 507
anþar, anþar, anþara 67, 96, 151, 157, 200, 250, aþþan unte 507
257, 465, 479, 491, 507, 512, 524 audagei 327
anþara managa 495 audags, audag*, audaga 32, 303, 327, 371, 487, 503
anþar (…) anþar 393 audahafts* 76, 307, 371
anþarleikei* 317 aufto 100, 140
anþarleiko 317 augadauro 286
apaustaulei* 326 augjan* 163, 526
apaústaúlus (apaustaul- / apaustul-) 41, 127, 136, at-augjan, at-augida, at-augidedun, ataugiþs /
169, 326, 387, 491 ataugids 163, 172, 431, 526
aqizi 32 augo (aug(in)-/ augon-) 4, 144, 145, 253, 272,
ara* 98, 356 318, 357, 358, 400, 402, 433, 517,
arbaidjan*, arbaidida, -arbaididedun 157, 447 526, 544, 559
bi-arbaidjan auhjodus* 32, 339
þairh-arbaidjan* 110 auhjon* 207, 339
arbaiþs (arbaid-) 129, 166 auhns* (aúhns*) 318, 492
arbi 115, 149, 310, 356, 452 auhsa* (aúhsn-) 62, 356
arbjis 48 auhuma* 71, 78
arbinumja 309, 310, 319 auhumists (auhumist- / auhmist-) 15, 78, 239,
arbja 123, 356 283, 511
arbjo 327, 356 auhumistins gudjins 283
-areis 33, 362ff. auhumists weiha 283
arƕazna* 28, 32 und auhmisto 253
arka (acc) 437 auk 244, 261, 275, 291, 377, 389, 394, 412, 430, 435,
armahairtei 303, 332 462, 469, 507, 508, 526f.
armahairtiþa 303, 329, 332, 504 in-uþ þis auk 508
armahairts* 303, 320, 329, 357, 392 nih þan auk 508
armaio 407 aukan* 189
armaleiko 317, 487 -aí-áuk 38
arman* ana-aukan, ana-aiauk 189, 264
ga-arman*, ga-armaida, ga-armaiþs 525 bi-aukan* 189
1.arms* auknan* 189
armostai 78 bi-auknan 189
2.arms (m) aurkeis* / aurkjus*
arniba 100 aurkje 123
aurtigards 284, 391 bajoþs 92

aurtja* 154, 284 balgs* 70, 92, 248
*ausihriggja- 286 baljon* 492
auso (aus-, auson-) 144, 195, 286, 357, 400, 527 balsan 117, 156, 167, 221f., 459
ausona hausjandona 406, 467, 480, 498 balþaba 100, 328, 528, 554
auþeis* 331 balþei* 245, 284, 328
auþida (áuþida) (acc) 32, 237, 331, 404, 548 balþjan*
aweþi 463 balwawe[i]sei* 14, 117, 301
awiliudon, 3sg awiliudoda 17, 150, 202, 207, 231, balwjan, balwiþs 150
251, 489, 505 balweins* 71
awiliuþ / awiliud 135, 202, 230, 286, 363 bandja 163, 167, 410
azeti* 349 bandwjan*, bandwida* <banwida, bandwid-uh>,
azetiza*, azetizo / azitizo, azetizei* 79, 92, 137, bandwidedun, bandwiþs
146, 250, 349, 410, 419, 429 ga-bandwjan*, ga-bandwidedun
*azets 27, 79 barbarus
azgo* 98, 115 barizeins* 32, 369
azwme (gen pl) 141 barn 5, 123, 128, 129, 135, 143, 147, 167, 199, 240,
241, 246, 259, 261, 270, 280, 354,
1.-ba 527 368, 376, 378, 387, 435, 508, 510,
ga-ba-dauþniþ 527 513, 524, 528, 530, 539
2.-ba (adv) 527 barnilo 61, 230, 376
badi 349, 359f. barnilona 104, 376
bagms 45, 471, 472, 500, 501, 506, 527 barniskei* 326, 349, 378
bai, ba 92, 104, 225, 227, 454, 548, 553 barniski* 212, 255, 349, 378
baidjan*, -baididedum*, baidiþs 415 barnisks* 326, 378, 510
baidiþs was bimaitan 222, 415 batists* 75, 78
ga-baidjan* batiza*, batizo 78, 79, 146, 213, 253, 428, 468, 509
baira-bagms* bauains 344
bairan, 3sg bar, berum, -baurans 183, 242, 247, bauan, 3sg bauaida 42, 203, 344, 412, 444,
384, 392, 400, 480, 527 487, 545
baír- 38 ga-bauan 203, 454
at-bairan*, 3sg at-bar, at-berun 163, 183 3sg gabauiþ 203, 262, 516
*inn-atbairan, innatbereina 183, 268, 449, 466 baúr 38
ga-bairan, 3sg ga-bar, ga-baurans 92, 183, 216, baurgs (baúrgs) 38, 40, 58, 60, 121, 154, 226, 238,
221, 400, 456, 495, 524 239, 256, 261, 262, 286, 312, 373,
gabairaidau 221, 463 434, 435, 528
(blinds) gabaurans warþ 455, 460, 510, 559 baurg seina Nazaraiþ 121
gabaurans was 509 baurgswaddjus 286, 319
gabaurans waurþi 460 baurþei 327
us-bairan, 3sg us-bar 183, 208, 398 bauþs (baud-) 75, 425
bairgahei* 373 beidan*, *baiþ, *bidum, *bidans 105, 130, 179, 528
bairgan* 150, 487 ga-beidan* 179
bairgais unsis 513 us-beidan* 179, 404
ga-bairgan* beist (acc) 14, 117, 126, 136, 184, 327
bajoþum gabairgada 150, 154f. *beistjan
bairhtaba 100 ga-beistjan* 126
bairhtei* 328 berusjos (pl tant) 270
bairhtjan* bi 240ff. 528
ga-bairhtjan, ga-bairhtida, ga-bairhtiþs 163 bi- . . . bi 275
bairhts*, bairht, bairhta* 527f. bibaurgeins* 98
baitrei 327 bida 117, 150, 200
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
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
*draban du inf 416ff.

ga-draban*, ga-drabans* 187 du . . . inf 18, 394, 417, 418
dragan* 163, 187, 530 *dugan, 3sg daug 15, 209, 210
at-dragan* 163 ni all daug 210, 213
atdraga 98, 187, 502 duhþe / duþþe (du-(u)h-þe) 530
ga-dragan* 530 duƕe 37, 85, 154, 156, 203, 225, 227, 457
dragk / draggk dulg* (? or dulgs*?) (gen dulgis) 123, 309, 310
dragkjan*, drag(g)kida, dragkidedum, dulgahaitja* 143, 309, 310
dragkiþs* 172, 194 dulþs 62, 238, 259, 262, 440
ga-dragkjan* 172f. *dumbnan
draibjan*, draibiþs af-dumbnan* 264
ni draibei 465 afdumbn 192
drakma* 3, 345, 546 duþe 64, 530, 561
drakmein 35 duþe ei 422, 452
drauhsna* 261 -dūþs 322, 339f.
drauhsnos / drausnos (acc pl) 46, 138 duþþe (v. duhþe)
drauhtinassus* 301, 325 dwalawaurdei 292
drauhtinon* 151, 183, 202, 325 dwaliþa 330
drauhtiwitoþ 301, 310 dwalmon* 44
*drausjan dwals* 75, 330, 475, 500
af-drausjan
ga-drausjan*, ga-drausida, ga-drausiþs* 195 ei 383, 389, 430–4, 445, 447f., 449–55, 460
dreiban* ei (…) ni 107, 338, 447, 452ff.
us-dreiban, us-dribun, us-dribans 104, þata / þamma . . . ei 442
157f., 264 eis, ins, ize(i), im
us-dribeina / us-dreibeina 460 eisarn 139
drigkan / driggkan, *dragk, drugkun, drug- eisarnabandi* 312
kans 44, 70, 124, 181, 218, 225, eisarneins* 163, 312
226, 310, 417, 418, 432, 462, 463,
511, 516, 530, 537 fadar 30, 61
driggkats 225 fadrein 18, 46, 165, 455, 530, 559
drigkai 463 faginon, faginoda, faginodedum, *faginoþs 202,
drugkanai wairþand 217 207, 419, 444, 557, 561
drugkans ist 217 fagino 76, 202, 466
ana-drigkan* 264 faginos 466
ga-drigkan* 463 faginoþ / faginod 442, 443, 451, 465f.
driugan* 310 fāhan, faifāh 189, 531
-driusan, draus, drusun, *drusans 145, 180, 400, fāh- 33
474, 530 ga-fāhan, ga-faifāhun, ga-fāhans 88, 131, 189, 327
gasaƕ satanan . . . driusandan 405f. gafāhaidau 128
at-driusan*, at-draus, at-drusun faheþs (fahed- / faheid-) 32, 120, 164, 243, 297,
ga-driusan, ga-draus, ga-drusun 180, 225, 245, 336, 337, 340
400, 474, 475, 479, 480, 530 du fahedai wairþiþ 243
us-driusan*, us-draus 180 faura fahedai 246
drobjan* 464 *fāhjan
drobnan fulla-fāhjan, fulla-fāhida 156
*ga-drobnan, 3sg ga-drobnoda *faihon
in-drobnan*, 3sg in-drobnoda 206 bi-faihon*, bi-faihoda, bi-faihodedum 90
drugkanei* 217, 326, 327 faihu (faíhu) 36, 40, 62, 146, 166, 189, 309, 413, 531
drus 30, 244, 475 faihufrikei 559
du 242ff., 530 faihufriks 14, 295
faihugairnei* 286 faurhtjan*, faurhtidedun

faihugairns* 286, 295, 328 ni faurhtei 136, 465
faihugawaurki 290, 319 ni faurhteiþ izwis 136
faihugeiro (faihu-geigo?) 286 faurhts* 509
faihuskula* 89, 309, 310 faurlageins* 116
faihuþraihn(s)* 286f., 411 hlaibans faurlageinais 116
fair- 266 faurþis 482, 510, 523, 554
fairguni 73, 253, 415, 531 faurþizei (faur-þiz-ei) 432f., 452
fairgunjis 49 faus* (faw-) 67, 122, 126, 470, 531
*fairƕjan fawizo (acc) 79
wai-fairƕjan* 208 fidurdogs 14, 37, 302, 321
fairƕus 5, 158, 254, 302, 433 fidurfalþs* 37, 303, 322
þans fairƕu habandans 280 fidurragini* 37, 292f., 321, 322
fairinon*, *fairinoda, fairinodedum*, -fairinoþs 202 fidwor / fidur- (Crim. fyder) 5, 6, 93, 247, 481,
fairjan* 394, 495 499, 506, 531
fairjais 394, 494, 502 fidwortaihun 93
fairlet 491 figgragulþ 287
fairneis* (fairnj-), fairni (acc) 37, 70, 329 figgrs* 531
fairniþa* 329, 330 fijan, fijaida, fijaidedun, *fijaiþs 203, 209, 524
fairns* 71 fiaiþ / fijaiþ / fijaid 29
fairra 101, 258 fiais fiand 110
fairraþro 517 fijands / fiands* 29, 81, 126, 170, 272, 553
falþan*, faifalþ 189 fijands manna 81
fana* 37, 116 fijands unsarai 81
faran*, *for, *forum, *farans 177 fiand(ans) / fijand(ans) 29
farao (faraon-) 254, 302, 392, 490, 492, 513 pl fi(j)ands ≠ fi(j)andans 81
farjan*, faridedun 554 filhan, -falh, -fulhun, -fulhans 31f., 181, 276
fastan, fastaida, fastaidedum*, fastaiþs ana-filhan, ana-falh, ana-fulhun, ana-fulhans*
(fastaid-) 186, 203 165, 181, 278, 385, 404, 413
ga-fastan, ga-fastaida, ga-fastaidedun 92, þata anafulhano 82
150, 203 ga-filhan, ga-falh, ga-fulhans xxiv, 181, 276
*fast-u/ja- 347, 531 us-filhan 181, 237
fastubni* 32, 347 filigri*
*faþs 283 filigrja / filegrja 243
fauho* 369 (þruts)-fill 368, 369
faur 91, 245, 321, 394, 498, 516, 531 filleins* 174, 368, 369
faur- 321 filu 61, 68, 101, 203, 213, 222, 236, 393, 455, 478,
faurhāh 321 487, 531, 537
faura- 266, 321 filaus mais 68, 139
faura 98, 101, 220, 245f., 266, 301, 321, 387, 471, filu air 101, 292
487, 503, 531 swa filu 229
fauradauri* 292, 301, 321 swa filu (auk) swe 89, 275, 552, 554
faurafilli 292, 321 filufaihs* 297
fauragagga* 309, 321 filusna (acc) 426
fauragaggi 124, 159 filuwaurdei* 208, 292, 328, 389, 449
fauragaggja 114, 309 filuwaurdjan* (v. -waurdjan)
faurahāh 321 fimf (Crim. fiuf = finf) 5, 93, 252, 259, 261, 506
fauramaþleis (m) 113, 114, 280, 283, 301, 308 fimftaihunim 93
fauramaþli* (n) fimftataihundin 96
fauramaþleis 48 fimf tiguns 204, 426
faurhtei* 328 finþan*, fanþ, funþum*, *funþans 181, 532
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
fulljan*, -fullida, -fullidedun, -fulliþs 336 gaggida 122, 191

ga-fulljan*, ga-fullidedun 171, 174, 454, 553 sa gaggands 80
ufar-fulljan*, ufar-fulliþs 120, 297 sa afar mis gagganda 80
us-fulljan, us-fullida, us-fullidedun, us-fulliþs þana gaggandan 405
120, 194, 241, 397, 416, 430 at-gaggan*, at-iddja, at-iddjedum 98, 219, 264,
fullnan*, -fullnoda, -fullnodedun 191–3, 205f. 268, 408
ga-fullnan*, 3sg ga-fullnoda, at-gaggiþ 268
ga-fullnodedun 174, 205, 454 at-gaggandei 272
us-fullnan*, 3sg us-fullnoda, du-atgaggandei 98, 272
usfullnodedun 205f., 400, 452 inn-atgaggan* 268, 452
usfullnodedun / usfulnodedun 30 atgaggands inn 266, 269
fulls, full*, fulla* 29, 67, 119, 206, 307, 367f., 506, 533 inn-atgaggands 269
fūls 14, 29, 374 inn ni atgaggiþ 268
funisks*, funisk*, funiska* 378 faur-gaggan* 321
fwnikisks*, fwnikisk*, fwnikiska 148, 377 faura-gaggan 321
ga-gaggan* 399
ga- 266, 398–402 inn-gaggan 225, 251, 398, 408
ga-1 399 inngaggaiþ 73, 266, 465, 470
ga-2 399 þairh-gaggan, þairh-iddja, þairh-iddjedun 238,
gaaggwei 332 386, 428
gaarbja* 293 þairhgaggaima 464
1.gabaur 339 us-gaggan, us-iddja, us-iddjedun, us-gaggans*
2.gabaur 339 107, 191, 237, 384, 398, 415, 420, 422
gabaurgja* 293 ut-gaggan* 398
gabaurjaba 255, 317, 339 gagrefts 14
gabaurjoþus* 5, 339 gagudei (gagudein-) 244, 437, 471
gabaurþiwaurd* 130, 287, 319 gahāhjo 100
gabaurþs* 120, 123, 250, 255, 334 gahait* 241
fwnikiska gabaurþai 148, 377 gahlaiba* 301, 321, 483, 498, 499
gabei 109, 115, 348, 505 gahlaibam, gahlaibaim / gahlaibim 301, 483
afmarzeins gabeins 123 gahobains 255
gabigs / gabeigs 137, 235 gahugds* 148, 334, 390, 539
gadaila 293, 399 gaiainna* 117, 221, 222
gadeþs* (gaded-) 308, 336 gaíaínnan 37
du suniwe gadedai 336 gaidw 50, 241
gadigis 231 gairda (acc) 174
†gadikis (v. gadigis) *gairdan
gadiliggs 361f. bi-gairdan*, bi-gaurdans
*gadofs, n gadob (1x gadof) 146, 187, 189, 288, 417 uf-gairdan*, uf-gaurdans* 264
gadrauhts 465 ufgaurdanai hupins 112
gafāh* gairnei* 328, 525
gafāhis þize fiske 123 gairnjan*, gairnida 119, 131, 194, 207, 227, 412,
gafulgins*, gafulgin, gafulgina 434 418, 435, 456, 457
gaggan, iddja (q.v.), iddjedum, -gaggans* 5, 88, -gairns 533
97, 98, 110, 111, 120, 191, 214, 257, gaitein (acc) 370, 533
384, 401, 414, 415, 431, 435, 436, gaits 370, 533
457, 458, 465, 487, 523, 533 gajuk 353
gagg 249, 259, 465, 468 gajuka* 293
gaggiþ 236 1.gajuko ‘companion’ 353
gaggam 200 2.gajuko ‘parable’ 139, 153, 183, 353, 479
gaggats 225f. gakunþs* 336
gakusts* 334, 337 garehsns 115, 240, 260, 417

1.galaubeins (adj) 145 þo . . . garehsn 220
2.galaubeins (f) 116, 251, 342, 445 gariudi* 350
galaufs* (galaub-) gariuþs 350
galeika* 293, 316 garūni 350, 353, 452, 547
galeiki* 350 garunjo* 361
galeiko 317, 428 garuns* 293
galeiks 147, 202, 316, 317, 318, 350, 399, 459, 513, gasinþi* 424
515, 533, 541 gaskafts 335
galga 86, 233, 453, 458 gaskalki 353
galigri* 350, 353 gaskohi 350, 353
galiug (acc) 173, 291 gaskohs* 303
galiugaapaustauleis 291, 321 gaskohai fotum 112, 148
galiugabroþar* 291 gastigodei* 196, 296, 319
galiugaguþ* 291, 325 gastigods 14, 296
galiugapraufetus* 291 gasts 58, 60, 170, 237, 280, 534, 539
galiugaweitwods 291 gataurþs* 244
galiugaxristjus 41, 291 du gataurþai izwarai 124
gamaindūþs 339f., 437, 545 gatemiba 99
gamainei* 328 gatils 408
gamains, gamain, gamainja (acc) 68, 106, 147, 339 *gatilata 6
gaman 116, 353 gatimreins* 244
gamarzeins* gatimrjo 361
hallu gamarzeinais 118 gaþagki* 350
gaminþi 301, 353 us gaþagkja 255
gamunan (v. 1.munan) gaþlaihts* 120
gamunds* 334, 336, 533f. gaþrafsteins 244
ganists 115, 334, 399 gaumjan, gaumida, gaumidedun 152, 207, 444
ganiþjis* 249 gaumjais uswairpan 417
ganohid- (v. *nohjan) ei gaumjaindau mannam 152, 248
ganohs*, ganoh (acc), ganoha 67, 147 gaunoþu* <gaunoþa> 339
gansjan* 129, 166 gaunon, gaunodedum 207, 339
1.gaqiss (adj) gaurei* 332
2.gaqiss* (f) 294, 335 gauriþa 49, 329, 332
gaqumþs* 17, 141, 334f., 413 gaurjan*, gaurida, *gauridedum, gauriþs (gaurid-)
garaideins 14 194f., 456, 561
witodis garaideins 280 gaurs 58, 149, 329, 330
garaidon (v. garaiþs*) gawairþeigs* 372, 510
garaihtaba 550 gawairþi 249, 273, 350, 372
garaihtei 116, 137, 328f., 332, 434, 485 gawairþeis / gawairþjis 48
garaihtiþa 332 gawairþi taujand- 280, 510
garaihts, garaiht, garaihta 72, 92, 94, 104, 135, 170, gawalidans (v. ga-waljan*)
199, 329, 421, 425 gawandeins 343
garaiþs*, garaid 220 gawargeins* 243, 254, 490, 492
garazna* 293 gawaurdi* 350, 353
garda* 284 gawaurki 183, 290, 350
gardawaldands 311 gawaurstwa 293, 308, 321, 407
gards 117, 177, 203, 223, 242, 245, 249, 283, 284, 289, gawi (gauj-) 237, 350
290, 311, 367, 394, 409, 414, 417, 445, gawiljis*, gawilja 412
452, 506, 516, 530, 534, 537, 564 gawiss* 334
giba 58, 59, 242, 508, 534 gredon* 111

giban, gaf, gebun, -gibans 71, 88, 125, 128, 166, gredus* 371
171, 173, 177, 185, 216, 230, 288, greipan, -graip, gripun 132, 277
413, 418, 438, 439, 462, 467, 477, fair-greipan*, fair-graip 240, 246, 264, 387
480, 519, 534, 538 und-greipan, und-gripun 240, 264, 277
gibands 80 gretan / greitan, 3sg gaigrot, gaigrotun, *gretans 5,
gif, gaf 28 98, 189, 207
skuld-u . . . gibaima 462, 557 ni gret 465
af-giban*, af-gaf 185 ni gretiþ 465
at-giban, at-gaf, at-gebum, at-gibans 88, 185, grindafraþjis* 305
219, 261, 453, 491 grunduwaddjus 259, 287f., 319
fra-giban, fra-gaf, fra-gibans* 166, 185, 244, gudblostreis 30, 284, 288, 308, 319, 353
392, 419 gudhūs* 283f., 319, 435
us-giban 92, 165, 185 gudafaurhts 296
us-nu-gibiþ 545 gudalaus* 284, 315, 535
gild (acc) 462 gudaskaunei* 282, 284
-gildan 30 gudisks* 377, 535
fra-gildan* 264 gudja 15, 147, 163, 241, 283, 325, 359, 431, 511, 535
us-gildan, us-guldans* gudjane auhumistans 283
gilstr* 30, 287 þai gudjans 65
gilstrameleins 30, 287 uf Abiaþara gudjin 251
*ginnan gudjinassus* 325
du-ginnan*, du-gann, du-gunnun 105, 153, gudjinon* 325
181, 264, 273, 413, 478, 519, 530 gulþ* (gulþ-) 4, 5, 6, 367, 369, 534
gistradagis 101, 121 gulþeins* 369, 371
*gitan guma 58, 60, 356
bi-gitan, bi-gat, bi-getun, bi-gitans 185, 217, gumakunds*, gumakund 307
230, 420, 436, 443, 449, 471, 528 gumein (acc) 307, 370
bigitats 225 *gutnan
giutan* us-gutnan*
giutand 69, 70, 92, 248 usgutniþ 69, 70
giutiþ / giutid 69, 70 guþ / g(u)þ (gud-) 61, 65, 75, 283f., 317, 377, 495,
glaggwo 99 496, 516, 534f.
glaggwuba / glaggwaba 99
glitmunjan* 44 haban, habaida, habaidedum, -habaiþs /
glitmunjandeins 553 habaiþ 88, 89, 93, 126, 128, 129,
godakunds 306 143, 170, 187, 191–3, 203f., 212,
godei* 14, 329 220, 223, 229, 258, 274, 280, 288,
goleins 134, 159, 449, 553 294, 343, 348, 364, 384, 400, 403,
goljan, 3sg golida 207 404, 406, 412, 417, 418, 437, 440,
goþs / gods, goþ / god, goda (god-) 27, 72, 74, 75, 117, 445, 458, 465, 466, 467, 468,
147, 167, 222, 272, 306, 310, 329, 424, 479, 480, 517, 519, 520, 537, 553,
456, 472, 480, 497, 500, 515, 534 557, 561
graba 272 haba 345
graban, grob 187, 271f., 295 habai 467, 480
bi-graban* 271f. habos 226, 418
us-graban*, us-grof 529 nih . . . haban 466
gramjan* þai ubilaba habandans 204
in-gramjan* 206 *at-haban, at-habaidedun 204
gredags 111, 214, 217, 371 athabaidedun sik 204
haban, habaida, habaidedum, manna haitans Iesus 108

-habaiþs / habaiþ (cont.) namin haitans Lazarus 149
dis-haban*, dis-habaiþs 204 ana-haitan* 155f., 388
ga-haban, 3sg ga-habaida, ga-habaidedun, and-haitan, and-haihaitun 156, 189, 216,
ga-habaiþs* 394 413, 437
hafjan*, hafans* 187, 535 andhaihaist 141
and-hafjan, and-hof, and-hofun 89, 91, 150, at-haitan*, at-haihait 89, 189, 264, 493
187, 249, 255, 388, 517 ga-haitan*, ga-haihait, ga-haihaitun 165, 166,
us-hafjan, us-hof, us-hofun, us-hafans* 187, 187, 189, 401, 413
517, 544 faura-gahaitan* 189
uz-uh-hof 512 us-haitan* 392
*hafnan haiþi* 122, 558
ufar-hafnan* 206 blomans haiþjos 115
haftjan* haiþiwisks* 376f.
ga-haftjan*, ga-haftida haiþno 377, 558
ga-ga-haftjan*, ga-ga-haftiþs* 399 halbs*, halbata (acc), halba (acc) 67, 126
hafts* 147, 307, 365 haldan, haldans* 463
1.hāhan*, -haihāh, -hāhans 189, 535 haldis: ni þe haldis 64
at-hāhan*, at-hāhans 189 halisaiw 101
us-hāhan*, us-haihāh 189, 502 halja 61, 65, 195, 353
2.hāhan, hāhaida hallus* 5, 118
haifstjan, haifstida 110 halts* 72
haifsts 110 hana (hanin-) 5, 123, 356
hailags* 7, 373, 535 faur hanins hruk 14, 123, 245, 262
hailjan, -hailida, hailidedum*, -hailiþs* 17, 109, handugei 105, 109, 173, 338, 348, 505
171, 195, 348, 418, 511, 535 handugozei 79
hailjan sik 220 handugs 79, 371, 372
ga-hailjan, ga-hailida, ga-hailidedun, ga-hailiþs* handus 4, 106, 126, 139, 143, 182, 203, 237, 240,
(ga-hailid-) 17, 171, 195, 206, 254, 371, 404, 482, 499, 532, 535
402, 535 handuwaurhts* 306
*hailnan hansa 189
ga-háilnan*, ga-hailnoda 206 hardizo 68, 79
hails, hail*, haila 5, 108, 170, 374, 420, 510, 535 harduba / hardaba 100
hails! 13, 108 harduhairtei* 256, 299, 327
haimoþli* 288 hardus, hardu 68, 79
haims* 62, 148, 225, 254, 257, 288, 303, 312, 408, harjis 15, 48, 59, 105, 353, 556
455, 535 hatan* / hatjan* 209
hairda 105, 116, 134, 261 hatis (hatiz-) 32, 354, 512
hairdeis 14, 48, 59, 74 miþ hatiza 249
hairto (haírto, hairtin-, hairton-) 62, 89, 144, 145, hatizon* 152, 202, 354
148, 249, 258, 262, 330, 357, 384, hatjan* (v. hatan*)
390, 402, 435, 476, 495, 496, 505, haubiþ (haubid-) 5, 27, 113, 124, 167, 466, 552
506, 520, 525, 535, 548, 561 haubid ~ haubiþ 27
hairus 386 haubiþ wundan brāhtedun 320
haitan, 3sg haihait, haihaitun, haitans 108, 168, hauhaba 100, 515
174, 178, 189, 207, 236, 240, 401, hauhei 327, 329, 332
416, 422, 450, 495 hauheins 377
haíháit 38 hauhhairtei (hauhhairtein- / hauhairtein-) 203,
haihait atwopjan ina 220, 277 262, 300, 505, 516, 559
haitada 120, 216, 434 hauhhairts (hauhhairt- / hauhairt-) 150, 299f., 320
haitaza 178 hauhis 101
hauhisti* 78 hidre / hidrei 37, 98

hauhists* 78, 135, 147 hilms* 116
hauhiþa 329, 331, 332 hilpan 132
hauhjan, hauhida, hauhidedun, hauhiþs 16, 195, at hilpandam 134
383, 459, 536 ga-hilpan*, ga-halp 132
*ufar-hauhjan, ufar-hauhiþs 206 himinakunds* 15, 105, 276, 306, 370f.
us-hauhjan, us-hauhida, us-hauhiþs* 195, ufarhiminakundans 276
220f. himins 65, 113, 114, 115, 184, 206, 242, 251, 252, 253,
ushauhida, ushauhido 76 254, 258, 307, 405, 410, 429, 430,
hauhs* 78, 329, 331, 535f. 453, 454, 473, 484, 501, 517, 536
hauhþūhts 319, 320 in himinam 499, 548
haunjan, -haunida, *haunidedum, hauniþs* sa in himinam 476, 557
(haunid-) 166, 195, 212 sa ufar himinam 476
ga-haunjan*, ga-haunida 195 þu in himinam 476
hauri* hindana 97, 99
haurja funins 116 hindar 259, 266, 422, 464
haurn (haúrn) (acc) 36, 119, 359, 368 nist hindar uns 136, 259
haurnja* 14, 359, 364 hindarweis* 303, 321
haúrnjan* 207, 359 hindarweisei* 140, 303, 321
haurnjandans 14 hiri, hirjats, hirjiþ 37, 39
hauseins* 342 hirjats 226
hausjan, hausida, hausidedum, -hausiþs* 117, *hiufan, hufum 207
126, 127, 158–61, 195, 220, 229, hiuhma / hiuma 219, 345, 404
239, 247, 277, 342, 400, 406, hiwi (acc) 437, 471
420, 422, 424, 436, 445, 450, hlahjan* 207
467, 474, 475, 479, 480, 498, *bi-hlahjan, bi-hlohun 207
523, 536, 553 hlaifs (hláifs) / hlaibs (hlaif, hlaib-) 27, 44, 95,
háusjan, háuseiþ 31, 46 116, 124, 125, 129, 131, 136, 153,
ausona du hausjan 195, 406 163, 167, 202, 231, 241, 252, 301,
sa . . . hausjands ~ saei hauseiþ 405 340, 435, 437, 463, 476, 506,
and-hausjan*, and-hausida, and-hausiþs* 150, 514, 536
195, 277, 389, 449 hlaiw (hláiw) (acc) 51, 154
ga-hausjan, ga-hausida, ga-hausidedum, hlaiwasna* 28, 32, 564
ga-hausiþs* 195, 277, 400, 402, hlas* 78
406, 425, 467, 480, 484 hlasoza 78
gahauseiþ *hlaþan
gahausideduts 225, 226 af-hlaþan*, af-hlaþans* 172
uf-hausjan, uf-hausidedun 153, 195, 442, hlauts 181, 536
451, 561 hleiduma*, hleidumei 227, 407
hausjon 202, 219 hleiþra* 46, 126
hawi hle[i]þrastakeins 259, 301
hawi haiþjos 115 hlifan* (str 5) 229, 337
hazeins 14, 343 hlefi 229
hazer (Crim.) 5 ni hlifais 465
hazjan, hazida, hazidedun, *haziþs 15, 31, 105, hliftus 337
195, 207 hliuma 345
heiwafrauja* 227, 288, 311 *hlohjan 5
her 36 uf-hlohjan* 5, 207
heþjo* 468 hlūtrei* 332
hi- (hina, himma, hita) 64, 253, 508 hlūtriþa* 32, 329, 332
und hita 253 hlūtrs* 329, 425
hnaiwjan* faura-ga-hugjan*, faura-ga-hugida 195

ga-hnaiwjan*, ga-hnaiwiþs* (-hnaiwid-) 195 ufar-hugjan* 206, 264
uf-hnaiwjan, uf-hnaiwida, uf-hnaiwiþs* 1.hugs* 114
(-hnaiwid-) 164, 173, 264, 387 †2.hugs (v. hūs*)
hnaiws* 564 hūhrus 139, 454
hnasqus* huljan
hnasqjaim 28, 140, 174 and-huljan, and-hulida*, and-hulidedun,
hneiwan, *hnaiw, -hniwun, *hniwans 44, 179 and-huliþ/ds 195, 437, 439
us-hneiwan*, us-hniwun 99, 179, 489 dis-huljan* 195, 264
horinassus 325, 333, 344, 559 ga-huljan*, ga-huliþs* (ga-hulid-) 91, 439, 455
horinon, 3sg -horinoda 152, 202, 325f., 344, 439 gahulidamma haubida 134
ni horinos 465, 475 hulþs 147, 465
haitada horinondei 66, 81 hund* (pl hunda) 93, 95, 146, 221, 459
ga-horinon*, ga-horinoda 152, 384, 476 hundafaþs / hundafads 283, 321
hors 58, 165, 169, 202, 325f., 465, 536 hunds* 167, 261, 376
horos 11, 488 hunsl (acc) 88, 139, 165, 373, 536
hrainei 329, 332 hunslastaþs* (hunslastad-) 242, 288
hraineins* 120 hups* 174
hrainjahairts* 303, 319 hūs* 4
þai hrainjahairtans 77 hūsis 481, 499
-hrainjan huzd 110, 435, 536f.
af-hrainjan 195 huzdjan 530
ga-hrainjan, ga-hrainids 116, 195, 404 ni huzdjaiþ izwis huzda 110
hrains, hrain, hrainja* 68, 319, 329, 341, 399, 536
hrain warþ 509 ƕa ‘why’ 97, 108, 136, 195, 279, 420, 554
hrains warþ 513 ƕadre 98, 214, 436
wairþ hrains 513 ƕairban* 420, 537
hraiwadūbo* 313f. bi-ƕairban
-hramjan ƕairnei* 121
us-hramjan, us-hramidedun, us-hramiþs 219 ƕaiti*? / ƕaiteis*?
*hrisjan gen sg ƕaiteis 116, 358
us-hrisjan* 251 ƕaiwa 89, 111, 144, 146, 154, 214, 221, 223, 236, 418,
hropjan, 3sg hropida, hropidedun 195, 207, 426, 449, 461, 466, 467, 517, 545, 556
253, 488 ƕan 170, 213, 453, 470, 487, 537
uf-hropjan*, 3sg uf-hropida 207 ƕanhun 47, 90
hrot (acc) 251 *ƕapjan
hroþeigs* 199 af-ƕapjan, af-ƕapidedun 480
hruk (acc) 14, 123, 245, 262 ƕar 97, 461, 466
hrukjan*, 3sg hrukida 123, 207 ƕarjis, ƕarja 67, 88, 114, 240, 446, 449, 537
*hruskan ƕarjizuh, ƕarjatoh, ƕarjoh* (acc) 88, 128, 139,
and-hruskan* 186 197, 222, 238, 386, 390, 426, 468
huggrjan* 207 ƕas, ƕa, ƕo 85f., 105, 114, 127, 128, 153, 156, 164, 169, 171,
huggreiþ 103, 111, 405 180, 185, 213, 214, 225, 226, 227, 239,
hugjan*, -hugida, hugidedun 104, 195, 334, 424, 240, 327, 407, 412, 418, 422, 425, 426,
430, 448 433, 438, 440, 441, 446, 447, 451, 455,
ni hauhaba hugjandans 515 460, 461, 462, 463, 467, 502, 507, 508,
ni hugei 465 513, 524, 526, 537, 556, 557, 559, 561
ni hugjaiþ 450, 465 ƕas izwara 128
þaim hugjandam afar faihau 146 ƕa uns jah þus 143
af-hugjan*, af-hugida 195, 433 ƕa mik jah þans . . . 148
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
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
kriustan* at-lagjan*, at-lagidedun 237, 400, 472

kriustiþ 28 faur-lagjan 231, 264
kubitus* 426 faurlagjaidau (pass opt 3sg) 231
kukjan*, kukida 145, 152 ga-lagjan, ga-lagida, ga-lagidedun,
bi-kukjan ga-lagiþs 196, 237, 461, 509
*kumbjan galagiþs was 509, 516
ana-kumbjan, ana-kumbida, ana-kumbidedun galagjai 64, 466
196, 425, 426 laigaion 3
hindarleiþ an-uh-kumbei 431 *laigon
kunawida* 312f. *bi-laigon, bi-laigodedun 202
kuni 45, 59, 109, 116, 196, 224, 246, 350, 487, 538, -laikan, lailaik, -lailaikun, *laikans 189
540 bi-laikan, bi-lailaikun 189
faura kunja þamma 503 laiktjo / laiktsjo 483
1.kunnan ‘know (how), understand’ (1.ga-, fra-): lais 168, 195, 196, 212, 540
kann, kunnum; pret kunþa, laisareis (1x laisaris) 14, 46, 61, 75, 108, 123, 163,
kunþedum, kunþs 209, 210f., 212, 214, 229, 197, 225, 227, 252, 253, 262, 363,
231, 326, 391, 413, 421, 445, 459, 381, 389, 441, 530, 533
539, 540, 556 laiseins 46, 62f., 141, 186, 237, 262, 275, 342, 343,
kannt / kant 30 479, 497, 557
kunneis 210 laisjan (láisjan 31), laisida, -laisidedum*, laisiþs*
kunneiþ 448 (laisid-) 168, 196, 317, 363, 399,
†kunnjai 211 478, 479, 508, 540, 553
kunþes 75, 212 laisidai gudis 81
ni kunnands laisjai 463
was kunnands 404 ga-laisjan, ga-laisida, ga-laisidedum*,
fra-kunnan, 3sg fra-kann, fra-kunþs 151, 206, ga-laisiþs 196, 395f., 540
209, 524 us-laisjan*, us-laisiþs* (us-laisid-) 264
1.ga-kunnan* ‘concede, submit’, 3sg ga-kann, at guda uslaisidai 280, 415
ga-kunnun, pret ga-kunþedum laistjan, laistida, laistidedum 196, 236
92, 163f., 209, 387 afar-laistjan* 196, 264, 272
2.-kunnan (2.ga-, uf-, ana-), -kunþa, -kunþedum, ga-laistjan* 196
-kunnaiþs* (-kunnaid-) laiwa* (liwa*?) 2, 410, 490, 492
ana-kunnan*, ana-kunnaiþs* 204 lamb (acc) 27, 95, 111, 114, 118, 125, 157, 160, 161,
2.ga-kunnan ‘recognize’, ga-kunnaidedum*, 175, 240, 355, 420, 443, 471, 501,
ga-kunnaiþs* 204 506, 540, 554
uf-kunnan, uf-kunþa / uf-kunnaida, land (acc) 122, 257, 399, 411, 414, 548
uf-kunþedum, uf-kunnaiþs* 204, lasiwostai 14, 78
448, 457, 472, 501 lasiws 14, 50, 51, 52, 68
kunþi 326, 348, 351 lats* 148
*kunþjan laþaleiko 317
bi-kunþjan* 487 laþon, 3sg laþoda, -laþodedum, laþoþs
kunþs, kunþ, kunþa 147, 211, 249, 351, 365, (laþod-) 202, 317, 344
508, 540 ga-laþon, 3sg ga-laþoda, ga-laþodedum,
kustus* 337 ga-laþoþs 202, 317, 509
laþons 17, 344
laggamodei* 303 lauan* (laian*?), lailoun 152, 189
*laggamoþs 303 *laubjan
laggei 327, 329 ga-laubjan, ga-laubida, ga-laubidedum, ga-
laggs*, lagg, lagga (acc) 329, 540 laubiþs 91, 111, 151, 196, 209, 217,
lagjan, lagida, lagidedun, -lagiþs 196, 223, 243, 280, 419, 424, 427f., 445, 446,
237, 540 450, 452, 461, 467, 494, 527, 539, 557
*laubjan (cont.) -leiks 316–19

galaubjands 147, 489, 506 leisan*
galaubjats 226, 401 leitil 101, 126, 172, 184, 402, 432, 440
ga-u-laubjats 226 leitil galaubjandans 280
ga-þau-laubidedeiþ 457, 557 leitil ƕa 464
ga-u-laubeis 559 leitils, leitil, leitila (acc) 72, 78, 148, 375, 541
ni-u galaubeis 559 *leiþan
þana galaubjandan 405 af-leiþan*, af-laiþ 234
us-laubjan* 153, 342, 383, 394, 414, 448 bi-leiþan*, bi-laiþ, bi-liþun, bi-liþans*
-laugnjan, laugnida (biliþanai) 157, 389
ga-laugnjan, ga-laugnida 110 barne ni bileiþai 129, 389
lauhatjan* 208 ga-leiþan, ga-laiþ, ga-liþun 94, 137, 146, 153,
lauhmuni* (lauhmon- / lauhmun-) 348, 405 179, 221, 222, 242, 245, 250, 258,
laun 383, 391, 399, 411, 414, 416, 419,
launa frawaurhtais 115 422, 437, 448, 455, 463, 468, 523,
launawargs* 288 525, 533, 557
-laus 315 galeiþam 464
laus (láus) 30, 119, 277, 288, 310, 315, 540 galeiþands Makedonais 122
lausawaurdei* 292, 351 galeiþos 226
lausawaurdi* 351, 353 ina galeiþan(dan) 478f.
lausawaurds* 288, 304, 320, 351 inn-galeiþan 179, 267, 269, 435, 470, 473
laushandja* 310, 320, 322 miþ-inn-galaiþ 179, 267f.
lausjan 31, 196, 343, 410, 488, 502, 513, 541 þai inn-galeiþandans 269
lausei 196, 476 hindar-leiþan 179, 410, 429, 431
lausjadau 176 þairh-leiþan* <þairþleiþan> 147, 264, 419
ga-lausjan, ga-lausida, ga-lausidedum*, us-leiþan 122, 179, 430, 455
ga-lausiþs 164, 173, 196, 235 lekeis 325
us-lausjan*, (us)lausjaidau 196 þu leiki 109
lausqiþrei* 304 lekinon* / leikinon, *lekinoda, lekinodedum* 17,
lausqiþrs* 304, 320 203, 325
leiƕan 36 leikinon fram imma 203, 219
leik 14, 98, 104, 117, 118, 119, 123, 137, 143, 238, 254, ga-leikinon 17, 90, 221
316, 340, 342, 365, 371, 390, 418, galeikinodos 120, 218
437, 463, 467, 485, 488, 503, 541, -letan, lailot, laílotun, -letans* 189f., 510, 541
545 let ei saiƕam 431, 432, 461
leikains* 242, 344 laílot, lailotun 38, 43
leikan* 151, 164, 344, 429 af-letan 70, 162, 172, 189f., 438, 439, 477, 557
ga-leikan, ga-leikaida, ga-leikaiþs* 151, 204, afleitana 189
410, 429 fra-letan, fra-lailot 163, 172, 189, 410, 414,
mis galeikaiþ 107, 112 422, 440, 458, 557
waila galeikaida 204 *letnan
leikeins 156, 371 and-letnan 412
le(i)kinassus* 120, 325 lew 45, 51
*leikon lewjan* 277f.
ga-leikon, ga-leikoda (3sg pass) 202, 436, 474, ga-lewjan, ga-lewida, ga-lewiþs 165, 277f.
475, 501, 533 sa (ga)lewjands ina 277, 403
galeikondans meinai 81 libains 71, 119,123, 277, 344, 371, 438, 470, 503, 541
ga-ga-leikon* 399 saurgos þizos libainais 114
miþ-ga-leikon* 202 liban, 3sg libaida, libaidedum* 117, 125, 204, 205,
miþgaleikondans meinai 81, 202 209, 228, 241, 344, 527
?leiks 316, 541 libeda (= libaida) 35
allai auk imma liband 135 *lūkan

sunjus gudis libandins 108 ga-lūkan*, ga-lauk, ga-lukun 180
miþ-liban* 209 us-lūkan, us-lauk, us-lukans* 144, 180, 433
libr 242 lukarn 276, 288, 452
*lifnan lukarnastaþa* 237, 276, 288
af-lifnan*, af-lifnoda -luknan
af-lifnandans 206 ga-luknan*, 3sg ga-luknoda 206, 242, 454
aflif|nandeins 46, 138 us-luknan*, 3sg us-luknoda, us-luknodedun 206
ligan*, lag, *legum 185, 244, 400, 435, 541 uslukn 192
at-ligan* 185 luston 132, 186, 203, 338, 417, 476
fair-ligan*, fair-l[ag] 185, 488 lustus* 14, 117, 255, 325, 333, 338, 412
uf-ligan* 185 lustusams* 296
ligrs* 123, 261, 276, 350, 353, 541, 548 luton*, -lutoda, *lutodedum, -lutoþs 203
lisan*, las, *lesum, *lisans 185, 537 us-luton*, 3sg us-lutoda, us-lutoþs 203
ga-lisan*, ga-lesun 98, 185, 247, 264, 393, 478
galis 487 magan*: mag, magum; pret 3sg mahta, mahtedum,
galisiþ 138 mahts 88, 163, 209, 210f., 212,
listeigs 140 246, 269, 327, 401, 406, 411, 418,
lists* 255 454, 455, 458, 541
liþus 14, 138, 393 (ni) mag 24, 27, 221, 247, 395, 411, 435, 456,
liubaleiks* 318 463, 467, 471, 501, 526
liufs*, liub*, liuba* 74, 147, 487 magands 246
sa liuba 74, 82, 358, 477 magt 27
liuga* 147, 307 magu, maguts 211, 225, 226, 228, 432, 463, 511
1.liugan ‘marry’, liugaida, liugaidedun, mahtededeina 211
liugaiþs* 204, 218, 366 ga-magan*, 3sg ga-mag 209, 401
liugandau 176, 204 magaþs (magaþ-) 32, 494, 541f., 547
*ga-liugan, ga-liugaiþs* 204 magula 376
2.liugan* ‘(tell a) lie’ 180, 208, 291, 541 magus 61, 243, 314, 376, 506, 542
liugn 45, 291 mahteigs, mahteig, mahteiga* 75, 95, 138, 147,
liugnapraufetus* 246, 291, 434, 471 195, 203, 252, 410, 435
liugnawaurd* 288, 291 mahts (f) 19, 27, 62, 335, 391, 394, 439, 471, 473,
liugnja 364, 459 476, 500, 501, 542
liuhadei* 326, 366 mahts, maht, mahta (PPP magan*) 90, 203, 220–4, 459
liuhaþ / liuhad (liuhad-) 117, 136, 244, 366 (ni) maht ist 509
liuhtjan*, liuhtida maidjan* 197
in-liuhtjan, in-liuhtida 264 in-maidjan, in-maidida, in-maidiþs 197
*liusan inmaidiþs warþ 509
fra-liusan*, fra-laus, *fra-lusum, fra-lusans 151, maimbrana* 3
180, 217, 218, 236, 334, 338, 420, *mainjan
443, 503, 541 ga-mainjan, ga-mainida
liutei 288, 559 ga-ga-mainjan* 399
liuts* 296 mais (máis) 27, 68, 101, 137, 163, 377, 487, 517, 557
liuþ* 286, 363, 364 maiz-uh 27
liuþareis* 363f. maist 101
liuþon* 208, 363f. maists 78, 283
lofa* 139 maistans gudjans 283
lubains* 344 -maítan, -maímáit, maímáitun, -máitans 177,
lubjaleis* 296 190, 542
lubjaleisei 296 af-maitan*, af-maimait 144, 190, 264
luftus* 338 bi-maitan, bi-maitans 190, 222, 415, 434
-maítan, -maímáit, maímáitun, -máitans (cont.) manwiþa* 91

us-maitan*, us-maitans 178, 190, 464, 472 manwjan, -manwida, *manwidedum, -manwiþs 167,
usmaitaza 178 173, 197, 277, 455, 467, 523, 542
maiza, maizo, maizei 68, 78, 79, 136, 138, 153, 252, ga-manwjan*, ga-manwida, ga-manwiþs /
387, 506, 537 ga-manwids 197, 246, 277, 390
malan* 345 faura-gamanwjan*, faura-gamanwida 197
malma 14, 115, 345, 475 manwuba 100
malo 106 manwus, manwu / manwjata (acc) (manwj-) 68,
*malwjan 410, 492f., 542
ga-malwjan*, gamalwiþs* (gamalwidans) 148 marei 14, 153, 157, 218, 248, 252, 256, 259, 275, 314,
mammona* 286f. 382, 422, 455, 478, 479, 493, 498,
mana- (= manna-) 320 512, 542, 561
managdūþs 337, 340 malma mareins 115
managei 62, 98, 105, 132, 151, 153, 158, 160, 163, mari- 542
167, 168, 190, 219, 235, 237, 240, marisaiws* 51, 314, 483, 542
246, 256, 273, 388, 426, 453, 478, marka 93, 250, 259, 491
493, 505, 506, 514, 542 martwr*
manageins filu 126, 236, 393, 478, 498, 500, marwtre 301
505 marzjan*
managfalþs* 297, 304, 322 ga-marzjan*, ga-marziþs* (ga-marzid-) (v.
managfalþo 297, 304 gamarzeins*)
managists* 78 matibalgs* 288f., 319
managiza*, managizo, managizei* 78, 79, 136, matjan, matida, matidedum 119, 124, 147, 197,
137, 138 202, 231, 261, 401, 417, 418, 435,
in managizo 146, 221, 459 453, 462, 463, 467, 537
managjan* 163 matjai 124, 463
managnan* (wk 4) ga-matjan* 401, 463
*us-managnan, 3sg us-managnoda 340 miþ-matjan 274
manags*, manag, managa 72, 122, 139, 151, 152, 166, ni miþmatjan 274
168, 171, 219, 223, 244, 291, 337, mats 106, 132, 163, 503
340, 352, 423, 470, 479, 495, 500, maþl* 301, 308
542, 553 maþljan*, *maþlida 5, 198, 208, 301
swa managai (swa)swe 89, 552 maudjan*
ni managans 514 ga-maudjan*, ga-maudida 171, 414
manamaurþrja 309, 359 maurgins 238
manaseþs / manaseds / manaseiþs 156, 166, 301f. *maurgjan
manleika (man(n)leik-) 114, 316 ga-maurgjan*, ga-maurgida, ga-maurgide-
manna (mann-) 29, 46, 58, 60, 91, 109, 117, 125, dum*, ga-maurgiþs* 197
145, 148, 152, 153, 157, 162, 163, 165, maurnan* 148, 152, 207, 462
170, 185, 186, 196, 221, 222, 226, *(ga-)maurþjan* 155
227, 235, 241, 248, 259, 273, 276, weihaim gamaurþiþ warþ 155, 486, 509
309, 353, 377, 403, 425, 428, 435, maurþr (acc) 210, 559
439, 442, 454, 455, 460, 465, 475, *maurþrja (v. mana-maurþrja) 309, 310
484, 489, 500, 506, 542, 547 maurþrjan* 309, 310
mans 30, 242, 382, 423, 426, 466, 469, 554 ni maurþrjais 465
sunus mans 70, 112, 114, 156, 219, 220f., 222, mawi (mauj-) 59, 61, 240, 376, 408
223, 278, 395, 405 & 421 maujos 55
(sunu mans), 423, 437, 466 mawilo 61, 376
mannahun 91, 111, 164, 383, 439, 460 meina (gen) (v. ik)
manniskodus* 339 meins, mein / meinata, meina 368, 499, 505, 542
mannisks* 339, 377 meinata 82
meki 5, 6 mikilnan 206, 412

1.mel ‘time’ 120, 238, 255, 342, 374, 394, 400, 493, mikils, mikil / mikilata, mikila 78, 110, 141, 164, 218,
516, 543 250, 326, 340, 374, 454, 455, 473,
2.mel* (pl mela) ‘writings; Scriptures’ 528, 543 475, 500, 501, 543
mela (acc melan) 261, 452 mikilata 68
meljan, melida, meliþs 148, 151, 167, 197, 214, 287, mikils abraba 79
342, 400, 411f., 543 mikilþūhts* 320, 390
ei melidai weseina 167 mildiþa* 329
ana-meljan 400 milhma 115, 272
faura-meljan*, faura-meliþs 433 miliþ 377
ga-meljan, ga-melida, ga-meliþs* (ga-melid-) 89, miluks* (gen miluks) 463
167, 197, 240, 256, 273, 275, 389, mimz (acc) 5
400, 437, 441, 442, 466, 508 minnists* 78
gamelid / gameliþ 197 minniza, minnizo, minnizei 78, 79, 138,
gamelid ïst 47 153, 424
gameliþ ist (auk) 509, 526 mis- 320
þata gamelido 66, 81, 222 missa- 266, 320
bi þamma gamelidin 241 missadeþs* (missadeds) 128, 162, 165, 167,
faura-gameljan*, faura-gamelida, 293f., 308
faura-gameliþs* 275 missaleiks 139, 318
fauragameliþ (warþ) 275, 552, 554 missaqiss 294
uf-meljan*, uf-melida 197, 481, 482 misso 100, 392
ufar-meljan*, ufar-meliþs* 197, 351 miþ sis misso 250
mena 4, 6, 65 mitads 491
menoþs (menoþ-) 63, 110, 242 -mitan, *mat, -metum, *mitans 185, 278, 385
mereins 343 ga-mitan*, ga-mat 165
meriþa 237, 333 us-mitan, us-metum / us-meitum 185, 223
meriþa fram imma 247 miton*, mitoda, mitodedun 134, 203, 207, 344
merjan, merida, meridedum, merids 16, 88, 197, mitons 63, 187, 344
208, 238, 260, 343, 348, 416, 417 miþ 249f., 266, 273, 498
*us-merjan, us-meridedun 197 miþgasinþa 293
waila-merjan, waila-merida 16, 175, 197, 306 miþþanei 270, 407, 479
waja-merjan, waja-meridedun 16, 89, 197, miþwissei 327
306, 343 mizdo 128, 356f., 390, 391
mes* (pl mesa) 14, 529, 543 modags 147
midgardiwaddjus* 289 mota 363
midjasweipains 254, 284, 491 *motan
midjis*, midja (acc) 67, 262, 543 ga-motan*: ga-mot, ga-mostedun 212
in midjaim 262 gamostedun 212, 553
in midjamma garda 203, 262, 516 motareis 114, 280, 283, 289, 363, 517
þairh midjans ins 262 motarjos 11
midjungards* 293, 319, 322, 477 motastaþs* 289
miduma* 293 *motjan
in midumai 262 ga-motjan, ga-motida, ga-motidedun 95, 151,
*midus 543 197, 226
mikilaba 100 wiþra-gamotjan 151, 266
mikildūþs 340, 484 mulda 261, 370
mikiljan*, -mikilida, mikilidedun, mikilids 16, muldeins 370
197, 206 1.munan ‘think’: man; pret munda, mundedun,
mikileid 48 munds 138, 209, 213, 238, 313,
*ga-mikiljan, ga-mikilida 197 401, 424
1.munan ‘think’: man; pret munda, mundedun, naudibandi* 163, 312f.

munds (cont.) naudiþaurfts 313
ga-munan, 3sg ga-man; pret 3sg ga-munda, nauh (naúh) 38, 120, 394, 402
ga-mundedum 131f., 209, 213, nauhþanuh (nauh-þan-uh) 407, 509, 516, 524
387, 401, 421, 442 *nauhan
gamunandans sijuþ 509 bi-nauhan*, bi-nah, bi-nauht 213
gamuneis 210 ga-nauhan*, ga-nah 213, 381, 389, 553
2.munan* ‘intend’, 3sg munaida, munaidedun naus 50
204, 207, 435, 511, 519 nawins 51
munandane 187 nauþjan* 271, 452
*munnon ana-nauþjan* 271
ufar-munnon*, ufar-munnodedun 153, 295 ananauþjai 110, 271, 457
þaim afta ufarmunnonds 97 nauþs 335, 391, 544
muns 116, 509, 515 ne 544, 545
munþs 262, 492 ne ne 518
þata ne ne 66
nadrs* neƕ 260
kuni nadre 116 neƕa 101, 212, 246, 259f., 266, 435, 525
nahtamats* 120, 132, 135, 289, 319 neƕis 101
nahts 27, 61f., 65, 110, 238, 319, 435, 467, 543, 553 neƕjan* 152, 260
naht jah dag 148, 312, 382 neƕundja 143, 418, 526
naht jah daga 141 nei 462, 517, 544
nahts (gen) 121, 217, 261 neiþ* 392
naiswor 188 neþla*
naiteins* 16, 89, 342 neþ|los / ne|þlos 46
*naitjan þairko neþlos 124, 137, 146, 147, 250, 419
ga-naitjan*, ga-naitiþs* (ga-naitid-) 16, 188, 342 ni 37, 273f., 465, 515ff., 544, 545
namnjan*, namnida, namnids 169, 197 Iudas, ni sa Iskarjotes 515
ana-namnjan* 175, 493 jū ni ik waurkja 515
namo (nam(i)n-) 62, 149, 163, 164, 185, 236, 240, ni . . . ni 517
289, 345, 347, 400, 442, 464, 477, ni swaswe ni habai 517, 530
495, 507, 513, 543, 556 ni þe haldis (v. haldis)
ana namin meinamma / ana þeinamma qaþ þatei ni sijai g(u)þ 516
namin 249 nibai (ni-bai) / niba (ni-ba) 517
in namin meinamma / þeinamma 249 1.nibai (Q adv) 537
þeinamma namin 249, 473, 499 2.nibai / niba (neg cond) 137, 251, 456ff.,
naqadei 326, 327, 328 538, 544
naqaþs (naqad-) 326, 328, 544 niba ainaim gudjam 147
naqadai waurþun 510 niba / nibai saei 92, 229, 456
naseins 116, 342, 491, 505, 506 nidwa 106
nasjan 153, 191–3, 252, 255, 342, 415, 439, 461, nih (ni-h) 37, 39, 128, 253, 393, 457f., 466, 524,
488, 492, 502, 544 544f., 560
nasei 233, 252, 254, 385, 487, 492, 502, 507 ni . . . nih 316, 317, 471, 515, 517
nasei unsis, mik, etc. 502, 513 nih . . . nih 106, 488
mik nasei 502f., 513 ni(h) þeei . . . ak(ei) 453
ga-nasjan, ga-nasida, ga-nasidedum*, nis sijai 544
ga-nasiþs* (ga-nasid-) 105, 197, niman, nam, nemum, -numans 125, 167, 177, 178,
235, 251, 254, 388, 392, 487, 490, 183f., 231, 241, 279, 289, 310, 389,
492, 506, 544 454, 485, 526, 545, 554
nasjands (m) 58, 60, 81, 489, 506 nim þus bokos 134
nati (acc) 157, 236, 351, 544 nimai 86, 135
af-niman 172, 264, 274 nuh (nu-h) 37, 526

and-niman, and-nam, and-nemum, nunu 205, 502, 545
and-numans 106, 127, 183f., 188, nuta* 123, 226, 425
279, 417, 481, 482, 499
andnamt . . . nemeis 554 o 109, 263
jau gastins andnemi 280, 539 ogan* (agan*?): og; pret ohta, ohtedun
nemuþ . . . andnemuþ 279 (1x uhtedun) 213, 257, 447, 508
sa mik andnimands ~ saei mik ni ogands
andnimiþ 405 ogeiþ 210, 213, 430, 545
bi-niman* 151 ogs 210, 213
dis-niman* 183, 264 ni ogs þus 136, 213
fra-niman 183 ohtedun agisa 141
ga-niman, ga-nam, ga-numans 183f., 493, 547 ohtedun sis agis 110
in-niman*, in-numans* 222 ogjan 213, 416
us-niman*, us-nam, us-nemun, us-numans 183 ō(þal) / *ōþ(a)l- 7, 22, 288
usnimada 157
*nisan paida (acc) 93, 466, 545
ga-nisan, ga-nas, ga-nesun, *ga-nisans 105, 185, papa 482
334, 430, 491, 526, 545 paraskaiwe 49, 50
nist 143, 252, 253, 255, 257, 418, 457, 486, 488, paska / pasxa 16, 24, 238, 453
494, 496, 507, 509, 516f. paurpura* 3
(jabai) nist g(u)þ 496, 517, 548 paúrpurái / paúrpaúrái 37, 140, 168, 174
nist auk ~ ni auk ist 526 peikabagms* 285
nist und ainana 489 plapja* 141, 413
niþjis 144, 352 plat (acc) 37, 116
niu (ni-u) 111, 137, 225, 288, 340, 437, 441, 444, praitoriaun 3
462, 473, 507, 545, 565 praitauria / praitoria 453, 523
niu . . . ni 517 praizbwtairei* 326
*niujan (wk 1) praufeti* (?nom sg m, nom pl n praufetja) 546
ana-niujan*, ana-niwiþs* 98, 264, 268, 329 praufetjan*, 3sg praufetida, praufetidedum 197,
an-uþ-þan-niujaiþ 268, 512 208, 249, 473, 546
niujasatiþs* 306 praufetjands 134
niujis, niujata (acc), niuja 51, 55, 56, 68, 92, 116, praufetus / praufetes 41, 46, 119, 127, 136, 155, 186,
248, 329, 353, 545 251, 371, 422, 424, 427, 430, 457,
niujata 49 469, 487, 546
waurþun niuja 508 psalmo 384, 468
niujiþa* 329, 330 pund 40
niun 5, 51, 52, 93
niun hunda 24 qainon 208
*niunda, *niundo, niundo* 96, 240, 253 qairrei 116, 255
niuntehund 93 -qen-iþ-
niutan 132, 492 qens 88, 109, 114, 129, 135, 173, 223, 244, 385, 389,
ga-niutan*, ga-nutun, ?ga-nutans 492 390, 402, 422, 439, 524, 526, 552
*nohjan qiman, qam, qemun, qumans 5, 115, 122, 184, 214,
ga-nohjan*, ga-nohida, ga-nohiþs (ga-nohid-) 220, 235, 237, 238, 246, 249, 251, 253,
197, 395 342, 383, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410, 411,
ganohidai sijaiþ 154 415, 416, 423, 430, 434, 435, 441,
nu 37, 307, 313, 382, 405, 412, 421, 436, 466, 474, 445, 450, 452, 458, 465, 471, 474, 475,
507f., 545, 547, 561 479, 483, 501, 523, 546, 553, 554
ƕaiwa nu saiƕiþ 545 qim 465
so nu faheþs meina 66 qimai 464, 477
qiman, qam, qemun, qumans (cont.) qiþan ist 501, 508

qimai-u 461 ana-qiþan* 16, 185
qam du nasjan unsis 415, 488, 502 and-qiþan 150, 246
qam saiƕands 406 faur-qiþan 185, 186, 264, 413
qemun sniumjandans 406 habai mik faurqiþanana 170, 185
sa iupaþro qimands 80 faura-qiþan*, faura-qaþ, faura-qeþum
sa qimanda 80 185, 264
ana-qiman*, ana-qam 271 fra-qiþan*, fra-qeþun, fra-qiþans* 185,
fra-qiman*, fra-qam, fra-qumans* (fraquman) 206, 264
151, 178 fraqast 547
ga-qiman*, ga-qemun, ga-qumans* 184, 399, fraqiþands* 157
435, 553 *ga-qiþan, ga-qeþun 208, 401
miþ-qiman* 264, 273 ubil qiþan* 154
miþ-ni-qam 273 qiþuhafto* 135, 307
us-qiman, us-qam, us-qemun, us-qumans* qiþus* 307
(usquman) 158, 184, 398, 413, *qiujan
452, 537 ana-qiujan 414
praufetum usquman warþ 155, 184, qius 50, 51, 68
486, 509 qrammiþa (acc) 28
qinakunds*, qinakund 307 qums 391
qinein (acc) 172, 307, 370
qino 58, 60, 89, 110, 120, 132, 146, 186, 187, 189, rabbei (voc) 547
218, 259, 288, 357, 377, 383, 417, ragin 14, 241, 353
434, 441, 475, 546 ragineis 48, 251, 353
-qiss 29, 30, 294, 335 raginon* 153
[qis]teins rahnjan*, rahnida, rahnidedun, rahniþs 118, 167,
qisteinai 342 169f., 198, 317, 425, 428, 553, 554
qistjan, -qistida, -qistiþs 153, 198 raihtaba 100, 199
-qisteiþ 29 raihtis 122, 412, 479
fra-qistjan, fra-qistida 157, 198, 230, 428 *raihtjan
us-qistjan, us-qistiþs 154, 198 ga-raihtjan, ga-raihtiþs 198
*qistnan at-garaihtjan* 198
fra-qistnan*, 3sg fra-qistnoda, fra-qistnodedun raihts* (raíhts*) 40, 170, 243, 365, 546
70, 111, 206, 444, 493 raidjan*, raidida
hūhrau fraqistna 139 ga-raidjan*, ga-raidida 151
fraqistnai 138 *raisjan
qiþan, qaþ, qeþun, qiþans* 91, 92, 104, 127, 153, ur-raisjan, ur-raisida, ur-raisidedun,
164, 169, 173, 185f., 208, 213, 214, ur-raisiþs* 167, 198, 218
217, 219, 226, 227, 231, 239, 240, ur|raiseiþ 76
241, 243, 269, 333, 335, 381, 383, *miþ-urraisjan, miþ-urraisida,
384, 387, 401, 408, 410, 414, 416, miþ-urraisiþs* 198
420, 421, 426f., 430, 434, 435, 438, *reisan
440, 445, 447, 448, 449, 451, 452, ur-reisan, ur-rais, ur-risun, ur-risans* 179,
457, 459, 460, 465, 473, 475, 479, 264, 421
480, 483, 496, 501, 507, 516, 538, urr- 36
546, 548, 552, 556 *rannja <ranja> 6, 359
ei ni qiþau 107 rasta (acc) 110, 271, 457
gaggiþ qiþid-uh 27, 431 raþizo 122, 147, 419
(iþ is) qaþ-uh 512 raþjo 360
qiþaits 225, 226, 227, 457 raus 248
qiþanda 81, 488, 491 razda 343
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-gasa, 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
ƕan, ga-saƕ, ga-seƕum, ga-saiƕans (cont.) ga-sandjan 268, 423

gasaiƕaindau 186 ga-h/þ-þan-miþ-sandidedum 198, 268
gasaiƕan Iesu, ƕas wesi 461 *faura-ga-sandjan, faura-ga-sandida 198
gasaiƕiþ wulf qimandan 405 in-sandjan, in-sandida, in-sandidedum,
gaseƕuts 226 in-sandiþs (in-sandid-) 86, 90,
ga-u-ƕa-seƕi 448 122, 166, 198, 246, 277, 310, 348,
jah gasaiƕiþ ina 231 416, 417, 445, 493
saiwala 74, 137, 149, 152, 153, 189, 196, 230, 386, 462 *miþ-in-sandjan, miþ-in-sandida 198, 269
saiws* (sáiws) 58, 314, 483, 499, 548 sarwa (acc pl n) 115
sakan, -sok, sokun, -sakans 165, 187f., 360, 375 -satjan, 3sg satida, satidedun, -satiþs (satiþ) / -satids
*and-sakan, and-sakans* 187 198f., 237, 261, 276, 400, 452, 463, 549
ga-sakan, ga-sok, ga-sakans 156, 187 satjiþ 43, 48, 49
in-sakan, in-sok, in-sakans* (insakana) 165, af-satjan, af-satiþs* (af-satid-) 198, 264, 342
187f., 240, 245, 422, 491 at-satjan 246, 264, 416
us-sakan*, us-sok 165, 187 ga-satjan, ga-satida, ga-satidedun, ga-satiþs /
sakjo* 360, 361 ga-satids 198f., 237, 246, 276,
sakkus* 29 387, 400, 523, 536
sakuls 375 miþ-satjan* 199
salbon, 3sg salboda, -salbodedun, *salboþs 167, miþsatjau 199
184, 191–3, 203, 279, 344, 366, 548 us-satjan*, us-satida, us-satidedun, us-satiþs*
ga-salbon*, 3sg ga-salboda, ga-salbode- (us-satid-) 199
dun 145, 203, 279, 401 ussatida sind 509
salbons* 344, 506 ussatjai 135, 199, 389
saliþwos (f pl) 226, 239 saþs* / sads, saþ / sad (acc) 119, 365, 401, 510
1.saljan ‘offer; sacrifice’, salidedun, -saliþs* 165, sauhts* 171, 183, 348, 418
181, 198, 536, 548 siukans sauhtim missaleikam 139
and-saljan 165 sauil / sauïl 24, 65, 248, 549
ga-saljan*, ga-saliþs* 165, 173, 198, 386 *saulnan
2.saljan ‘stay, remain’, salida 110, 198, 425, 548 bi-saulnan* 453
us-saljan 198, 242 saurga 114, 135, 142, 143, 205, 243
salt 4, 139, 190 saurgan, *saurgaida, saurgaidedum* 205, 207, 434
saltan*, *saisalt, *saisaltum, -saltans* sei 89, 173, 220, 325, 434, 438
(v. unsaltans*) 190 seina (gen) (v. sik)
salta saltada 88, 139 seinagairns*
sama- 320 seinaigairnai 281
sama, samo, samo* 14, 71, 104, 156, 167, 227, 296, seins*, sein / seinata (acc), seina (acc) 368, 384,
304, 491, 548f. 388–92, 497, 499, 500, 505, 549
samafraþjis* 304 seinata 82
samakuns* 304 sein silbins 386
samalauþs*, samalaud (acc) 304 selei 547
samaleiks* 318 sels (nom sg f) 392
samana 99, 486, 489 -seþs 43, 335, 347, 549
samaqiss* 294 si, ija, izos, izai 84
samasaiwals* 304 sibja (acc) 549
samaþ 97, 468 suniwe sibja 336
samjan 153 *sibjon
sandjan, 3sg sandida, sandidedun, -sandiþs 198, ga-sibjon 151, 152
387, 412, 453 sibun 5, 93, 114, 244
sandeiþ 48 sibuntehund 93
sandjan 31 sifan*, 3sg sifaida 207
siggwan, *saggw, suggwum*, suggwans* 5, 182, dis-sat þan 560

208, 406, 549 diz-uh-þan-sat 186, 266, 560
sigg|wada 29 ga-sitan, ga-sat 186, 400, 416, 479
*faura-siggwan, faura-suggwans* 182 sitls* 374, 539
us-siggwan*, us-suggwum* 182, 204, 441 siukan 180, 209, 420, 424
sigis 230, 354 ƕas siukiþ? 180
sigislaun (acc) 289, 319 siukei 107, 112, 204, 243, 326
sigljo 288 siuks, *siuk, siuka (acc) 14, 76, 126, 139, 170, 180,
sigqan*, sagq, sugqun, ?sugqans* 182, 454, 553 260, 333, 420, 435, 525
?sugqanana 493 siuns 166, 241, 294, 340, 402, 443
dis-sigqan* 182, 264 skaban
ga-sigqan*, ga-saggq 182 bi-skaban*, bi-skabans* 264
si(j)um, si(j)uþ (v. 1.wisan) skadus 59, 251, 454
sik, seina, sis 278, 383f., 502 *skadwjan
seina (gen) 82, 133 ufar-skadwjan*, ufar-skadwida 272
sikls* 116 skaidan, -skaískáid, -skaiskaidun, *skaidans 28,
silba- 320 157, 190, 550
silba, silbo, silbo 71, 278, 294, 384, 412, 549 af-skaidan, af-skaiskaid, af-skaiskaidun 190
ik silba, mik silban (etc.) 385 dis-skaidan* 394
fram mis silbin 557 skalkinassus 325, 344
silbasiuneis* 294, 308, 353 skalkinassaus jukuzja 116
silbawiljis* 294, 307, 353 skalkinon, skalkinoda, skalkinodedum 98, 144,
silda- 320 153, 203, 228, 229, 325, 330, 344,
1.sildaleik (n) ‘astonishment’ 204 411, 476, 539
2.sildaleik* (n) ‘miracle’ 12 *miþ-skalkinon, miþ-skalkinoda 203
sildaleikjan*, sildaleikida, sildaleikidedun 455 skalks 75, 127, 132, 144, 151, 253, 325, 353, 416, 420,
sildaleikjandona 104, 106, 443 465, 487, 538
sildaleiks, sildaleik 318f. skaman*, 3sg skamaida 205, 395, 413, 502, 544
silubr (acc) 4, 116, 370, 549f. skamaiþ sik 112, 395, 502
silubreins* 370, 371 ga-skaman* 205
simle 101 *skapjan 488, 550
sinap* 358 ga-skapjan*, ga-skop, *ga-skopum, ga-skapans
kaurno sinapis 116, 358 188, 217, 218, 335, 488, 550
sineigs 78 skaps* 488, 495
sinista* 78, 115, 156, 223 *skarjan 550
þai sinistans 65, 78 us-skarjan* 550
sinteino 100, 150, 151, 230, 435 skatts 29, 95, 137, 163, 221, 459
sinteins* 74, 151, 477 skaþis (acc) 166
sinþ(s?)* 142, 237, 245, 413 skaþjan*, skoþ, -skoþum, *skaþans 184, 188, 550
ainamma sinþa 142, 366 ga-skaþjan*, ga-skoþ, ga-skoþum 90, 113,
siponeis 94, 107, 125, 127, 144, 151, 162, 203, 252, 152, 188
253, 273, 381, 384, 389, 391, 422, ?us-skaþjan* 550
460, 512, 545, 553 skaþuls* 184
sitan, sat, setun 186, 240, 258, 289, 386, 400, skaudaraip (acc) 115, 289, 410
418, 550 skauns* (skaunj-) 341
sitaiwa 225, 227 skaurpjo* 3, 261
sitandin þam imma 134 skaut* 98, 272, 557
and-sitan* 186 skeima* 346
bi-sitan* skeinan 346, 550
dis-sitan*, dis-sat 186 skeireins (acc skerein) 343
*skeirjan uf-sliupan*, uf-slaup

ga-skeirjan*, ga-skeiriþs* 121, 250, 343, 495 inn-uf-sliupan*, inn-uf-slupun 267
ist gaskeiriþ 509 smakka* 29, 120, 285, 537
skeirs 36, 483, 550 smakkabagms 285, 547
skildus* 116, 338 smalists* 127
skilliggs* 125, 362, 482 smarna* 106, 424
skilliggans .j. / .rk. / .rlg. 482, 499, 506 *smeitan
skip 200, 273, 416, 454, 455, 479, 510, 550, 553 bi-smeitan*, bi-smait 145, 272
*skiuban ga-smeitan*, ga-smait 145, 272
af-skiuban*, af-skauf 149 snaga* 37
us-skiuban*, uskubun 149 plat snagins niujis 116
skohs* 303, 350, 353, 410 snaiws (snáiws) 45, 51, 553
skaudaraip skohis 115 sneiþan*, -snaiþ, -sniþans 442
skohsl* 16, 104 sniumjan*, sniumidedum 406
*skritnan sniumundo 101
3sg di(s)-skritnoda, dis-skritnodedun 321 sniumundos 101
skuft* 124 sniwan*, -snau, -snewum, *snuwans 57, 184
skuggwa* 550 aþþan snau-h 512
skula 119, 356, 364, 424, 477f., 551 du-at-sniwan*, du-at-sniwun 184
dulgis skulans 123, 143, 309, 310 faur-sniwan*, faur-snau 184
þuk silban mis skula is 356, 478 ga-sniwan*, ga-snau, ga-snewum 184
skulan*: skal, skulum; pret skulda, skuldedum, snutrei* 116
skulds 89, 98, 209, 210f., 213f., sokareis 117, 363, 364
382, 389, 411, 422, 423, 436, 513, sokeins 342, 343
519, 530, 550 sokjan, sokida, sokidedum 153, 154, 167, 191–3,
skulds, skuld, skulda (PPP skulan*) 147, 211, 196, 199, 249, 340, 342, 343, 363,
220–4, 288, 419, 462, 557 364, 410, 413, 449, 455, 461, 466,
(ni) skuld ist 509 504, 551
skūra 116 ni sokei lausjan 196, 410
slahals / slahuls 375 sokeiþ 43, 49
slahan*, sloh, slohun, *slahans 139, 188, 375, 517, 551 sokidedun ina . . . usqiman 158
af-slahan*, af-sloh, af-slohun 188, 452 miþ-sokjan 199, 264, 273
slauhts* us-sokjan* 199
lamba slauhtais 118, 175, 554 sokns* (sokn-) 340
*slauþnan soþ(s)* 365
af-slauþnan, af-slauþnodedun 429 du soþa leikis 365
sleiþa (acc) 424, 425 *soþjan
*sleiþjan ga-soþjan, ga-soþida 514
ga-sleiþjan*, gasleiþiþs spaikulatur (spaíkulatur) 37
gasleiþeiþ 149 spaiskuldr* 284f.
sleiþs (sleidj-) 455 sparwa* 145
slepan*, saislep, -saislepun, *slepans 5, 108, 190, spaurds* 554
539, 551 spedists*, spedist*, spedista / spedumista 79, 141
saíslep / -saízlep 31 bi spedistin 240
ana-slepan*, ana-saisleip, ana-saislepun 38, *spediza, *spedizo, spedizei* <speidizei> 79
190, 228, 264 speiwan, -spaiw, spiwun, *spiwans 179
ga-slepan*, ga-saizlep, ga-saizlepun 190, 200 *and-speiwan, and-spiwum* (andspiwuþ 179)
sleps* 206, 448 bi-speiwan*, bi-spiwun 179
*slindan ga-speiwan*, ga-spaiw 179
fra-slindan 410, 493 spill* 130, 186, 551
sliupan* spillon*, 3sg -spilloda, spillodedun 16, 164, 203
ga-spillon*, gaspillo 16, 203, 431 bi-stigqan*, bi-stagq, bi-stugqun / bi-stuggqun

þiuþ-spillon*, 3sg þiuþ-spilloda 16, 305f. 182, 241, 474, 475
us-spillon*, us-spillodedun 203 stikls 116, 123, 124, 131, 172, 225, 226, 228, 374, 432,
waila-spillon* 16, 305f. 437, 463
sprauto 101, 154, 200, 394 stiur 151
stafs* (stab-) 430 stojan, -stauïda, stauidedum* 199, 241, 428, 516
*stagqjan stojan : stauïda 43
ga-stagqjan* 182 ga-stojan*, ga-stauida 199
staiga* 170 stols 4, 6, 195, 374
stainahs* (stainah-) 32, 372f., 480 stoma* 347
staineins* 370 straujan*, strawidedun 153
stainjan*, stainiþs 88, 366 uf-straujan*, uf-strawidedun 153
stains 5, 118, 153, 156, 158, 167, 254, 274, 318, striks 44, 430
368, 370, 372, 437, 443, 474, *suljan 534
499, 551 ga-suljan*, ga-suliþs* (ga-suliþ, ga-sulid-) 199,
stairno* 5 474, 501, 534
-staldan, -staístald 28, 190 gasuliþ was 501, 509
and-staldan 162f. suman 255
ga-staldan, ga-staistald 190, 558 sums / sumz, sum / sumata, suma 67, 127, 143, 217,
standan, -stoþ, stoþun 98, 188, 288, 308, 404, 413, 255, 310, 408, 420, 437, 479, 512, 551
418, 493, 517 sum . . . anþar 479
standaid-uh 205 sumanz 14
af-standan*, af-stoþum 188 sumz-uþ þan 217
and-standan, and-stoþ 150, 188, 264 sundro 97, 495
at-standan* 125, 252, 264 sunja 117, 160, 188, 245, 371, 433
bi-standan* 271f. sunjaba 100
ga-standan, ga-stoþ, ga-stoþun 188 sunjeins, sunjein, sunjeina 371
gastost 30, 190 sunjon*, -sunjoda 255, 256
in-standan* 188 sunjons* xix
us-standan, us-stoþ 107, 188, 254, 418 sunno 4, 62, 65, 549, 551
usstandand 73, 76, 107, 254 at sunnin . . . urrinnandin 480, 551
staþ*/staþs* (n/m?) (staþ-) ‘shore, land’ 5, 256, suns 17, 234, 413, 480, 548, 552
335, 367, 478, 498 sunsaiw 17, 101
staþs / stads (m) (stad-) ‘place’ 121, 122, 129, 167, sunus 33, 40, 56, 58, 60f., 70, 108, 112, 117, 119, 123,
288, 289, 291, 335, 435, 523 144, 147, 156, 170, 183, 213, 216, 217,
ƕairneins staþs 121 336, 387, 395, 400, 405, 423, 426,
1.staua (f) ‘judgment’ 199, 488 437, 438, 450, 460, 466, 477, 495,
2.staua (m) ‘judge’ 155, 453, 488 505, 552, 559
stauastols* 134, 289 sunjus 52
stautan* 240 sutizo 351
-steigan, -stáig, -stigum, *stigans 177, 179, 551 suts, sut*, sutja (acc) 351
at-steigan*, at-staig 179, 233, 264, 453 swa 227, 382, 389, 449, 463, 466, 469, 526, 552
atsteigadau 176, 458 swa . . . ei 402
ga-steigan*, ga-stigun 179 swaei 213, 330, 454f.
ufar-steigan*, ufar-stigun 179, 480 *swaggwjan
us-steigan, us-staig (1x ustaig), us-stigun 179, *af-swaggwjan, af-swaggwiþs* 205
252, 405, 421 swaleiks, swaleik / swaleikata (acc), swaleika 67,
stibna 46, 117, 160, 161 139, 159, 170, 213, 254, 255, 274,
(miþ) stibnai mikilai 250 319, 391, 513, 541
stigqan, -stagq, -stug(g)qun, *stugqans 182, swamms*
474, 551 swamm / swam 171
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
*taurnan triweins* 370, 371

dis-taurnan* 70 trudan, trudans* 261, 488, 509
-tehund 94f. ga-trudan*, ga-trudans* 488
*teihan fra-trudan*, fra-trudans* 155, 488
ga-teihan*, ga-taih, ga-taihun, ga-taihans 16, stauam fratrudan warþ 155, 486, 509
164, 173, 179, 262, 513 *trusgjan
gateihats 226 in-trusgjan, in-trusgiþs 410
faura-gateihan*, faura-gataih 179 tuggo (tuggon-) 357
-tekan, taitok, -taitokun, *tekans 89, 153, 190 tulgus 68, 287, 288
at-tekan, at-taitok, at-taitokun 98, 153, 190, tunþus* 253, 300, 555
272, 430, 448, 457, 557 tuzwerjan* (v. werjan)
tigus* (pl tigjus*, tiguns, etc.) 5, 27, 94, 125, 506 twai, twa, twos 93, 94, 104, 110, 125, 249, 358, 457,
*tilon 506, 548, 554
and-tilon* 150, 524 in twa 321
ga-tilon* twaddje 54, 56
ga-ga-tilon*, ga-ga-tiloþs* (ga-ga-tilod-) 399 twalibwintrus 117
timreins* 124, 342 twalif (twalib-) 27, 32, 93, 94, 117, 387, 506, 554
timrja 105, 156, 359, 361, 443 þai / þans twalif 66
timrjan* (timbrjan), timridedun, -timriþs* 200, tweihnai* 93, 250, 466
259, 359, 393, 412, 555 twis- 266
timbrjan 45 twisstass* 302, 321
*ana-timrjan, ana-timriþs* (ana-timrid-) 200, 264
ga-timrjan*, ga-timrida, ga-timriþs* þadei (þad-ei) 88, 97, 435
(ga-timrid-) 200, 436, 474, 475 þagkjan, 3sg þāhta, þāhtedun, *þahts 200, 207,
gatimrjands 81, 109, 263 240, 350, 385, 449, 464, 555
*miþ-gatimrjan, miþ-gatimriþs* þāhta sis 134, 449
(miþ-gatimrid-) 200, 217 and-þagkjan*, and-þāhta 171, 200
tiuhan, -tauh, tauhun, tauhans 152, 180f., 225, 381, 555 andþaggkjandins 171
tiuh- 36 andþāhta mik 200
af-tiuhan 180 bi-þagkjan* 200
at-tiuhan, at-tauh, at-tauhun 180, 270 þagks*(?) (acc þank) 350
attiuhats 225 þahains* 345
inn-at-tiuhan* 270 þahan*, 3sg þahaida, þahaidedun 205, 345, 375,
at-tauh inn 270 437, 555
inn-at-tauhun 181, 270 *ga-þahan, ga-þahaidedun 205
bi-tiuhan, bi-tauh 180 þairh 250f., 262, 266, 465, 498, 550, 555f.
ga-tiuhan*, ga-tauh, ga-tauhun, ga-tauhans 98 þairko (acc) 124, 137, 146, 147, 250, 419
miþ-gatiuhan*, miþ-gatauhans 181 *þairsan
us-tiuhan, us-tauh, us-tauhun, us-tauhans 20, *ga-þairsan, ga-þaursans* 207
180, 440, 548 þan 95, 96, 214, 217, 219, 238, 242, 253, 259, 287,
us-tauhan, us-tauhana 220, 307 377, 400, 407, 408, 409, 411, 435,
trauan, 3sg trauaida, trauaidedun 42, 200, 205, 351 468, 479, 480, 507, 511, 556, 560
ga-trauan*, ga-trauaiþs* (ga-trauaid-) 152, (= þanei) 435
173, 205, 385, 399, 425, 444 þanamais 129, 166, 516
ga-þ-þan-traua 269 þanaseiþs 229
trausti* 351 þande / þandei 556
triggwa þanei (þan-ei) 435
triggwos 29, 103, 131 þannu (þan-nu) 472, 508, 561
triggws, triggw, triggwa* 29, 50, 54, 165, 169 þannu nu 128, 508, 516
-triu (triw-) 50, 51, 370, 555 1.þanuh ‘then’ 556
2.þanuh ‘now, then, and’ 556 þei 87, 171, 435f.

þar 97 þataƕah þei 435
þarba* 434 þisƕaduh þei 435
*þarban þisƕah þei 435
ga-þarban 132 þisƕammeh þei 435
þarbs*, þarb 120, 434 þisƕaruh þei 435
þarei (þar-ei) 98, 106, 435, 480 þisƕizuh þei 435, 438
þarf, þaúrbum (v. þaurban*) þeihan, þaih, -þaihum*, *þaihans 148, 179, 445, 558
þarihis 37 ga-þeihan*, ga-þaih, ga-þaihum* 179
1.þaruh ‘there’ 435, 556 þeiƕo* 427
2.þaruh ‘now, then, and’ 556 þeina (gen) (v. þu)
þata (v. sa) þeins, þein / þeinata, þeina 19, 368, 477, 499, 504,
þata (…) inf 18, 418f. 505, 558
þataƕah (v. saƕazuh) þeinata 68, 69, 70, 82
þat-ain 442 þewis* (þewis-) 354
þatainei 47, 371, 419, 442, 507 *þinsan
þatei (comp) 422, 430, 445f., 448, 450, 460, 475 at-þinsan* 182, 264
ni þatei 229, 434, 517 us-þinsan* 182, 438
þatei . . . ei 389 þishun 489, 506
þatei (rel) (v. saei) þisƕaduh 87f.
þat’ist 106 þisƕaruh 87f.
þaþro 46, 97 þisƕazuh, þisƕah 87, 171
1.þau ‘than’ 137f., 146, 221, 222, 252, 281, 377, þisƕah þei bidjais mik 171
459, 557 þisƕanoh saei 438
2.þau / þauh ‘whether; or (whether)’ 557 þisƕazuh ei qiþai 438
þau ‘or’ 226, 288, 455, 462, 557, 559 þiubi* 351, 559
3.þau (~ þauh) ‘then, in that case’ 129, 457, 557 þiubjo 101
ga-þau-laubidedeiþ 457 þiubs 243, 337, 351, 553, 558
ni þau (ni þauh) 557 þiuda 123, 156, 244, 254, 257, 280, 378, 414, 444,
4.þau ‘just, even; by chance’ 527, 557f. 487, 558
þaurban*: þarf, þaurbum; pret 3sg þaurfta 31, 90, þai þiudo 114
132f., 209, 210f., 214, 335, 399, þiudangardi 19, 114, 123, 126, 137, 146, 175, 183,
411f., 414, 440, 558 221, 289, 319, 416, 456, 473, 476,
þeina ni þarf 133 477, 501
þaurftozo 214 þiudanon, þiudanodedum* 203, 325, 387, 423
1.þaurfts* (adj) 211, 214 þiudans 65, 169, 170, 252, 289, 325, 368, 408, 440,
2.þaurfts (f) 142, 335 447, 458, 477, 488, 492, 526, 559
þaurneins*, *þaurnein, þaurneina (acc) 370 þiudinassus 96, 289, 325, 464, 477
þaurnus* 117, 254, 370, 480, 500, 537, 558 þiudisko 101, 378
þaurp (acc) 558 þiufs* (v. þiubs)
þaursjan*, þaursiþs* (þaursid-) 207 þiumagus 314
þaurseiþ 111, 243, 405 þius* (þiw-) 50, 62, 314, 559
*af-þaursjan, af-þaursiþs (af-þaursid-) 207 þiuþ (þiuþ-) 139, 294, 306, 365, 439, 486, 524
*þaursnan, *þaursnoda 400 þiuþeigs, þiuþeig*, þiuþeiga 75, 294, 372, 420, 472
ga-þaursnan*, 3sg ga-þaursnoda 207, 400, þiuþeins 237, 344, 493, 505
480, 547 þiuþiqiss* 294, 372, 437
þaurstei* 329 þiuþjan*, þiuþida, þiuþiþs (þiuþid-) 157, 344, 449,
þaursus (nom sg f) 68 493, 514
þe 103 þiuþiþs, þiuþido 76
þeei (þe-ei) 434, 453 ga-þiuþjan*, ga-þiuþida
þiuþspillon* (v. spillon*) af-þwahan, af-þwoh 188

þiwadw (acc) 50, 51, 53, 325 us-þwahan*, us-þwoh, us-þwohun 145, 188, 382
*þiwan þwahl* <þwalh> (acc) 45, 250, 375
ana-þiwan* 264 þwahla 14, 116
ga-þiwan*, ga-þiwaidedun, ga-þiwaids 509 þwairhei 46
þiwi (þiuj-) 508 þwai|rheins 46
þlahsjan* 45, 251 þwaírhs 44
*þlaihan
ga-þlaihan 152, 410 -u 226, 266, 461, 462, 463, 507, 511, 559
þliuhan, -þlauh, -þlauhun, *þlauhans 45, 51, 181 maguts-u 225, 226, 228, 432, 463, 511
ga-þliuhan*, ga-þlauh, ga-þlauhun 181 sa-u 455, 460, 559
unþa-þliuhan*, unþa-þlauh 181, 265 ubil 77, 218, 253, 365
þragjan*, þragida 559 ubilaba 100, 204
þrasabalþei* 284 ubils, ubil, ubila 78, 120, 472, 478, 501, 503, 559
þreihan*, *þraih, þraihun, þraihans 180, 470, ubila[na] 325, 333
500, 559 ubiltojis 308
þraiheina 453 ubilwaurdjan (v. -waurdjan)
þraíhun, þraíhans 38 ubilwaurds 208, 304
þreis* 93, 126, 146, 221, 242, 243, 245, 263, 413, uf 251f., 276
459, 506 ufaiþs* 304
acc pl þrins, þrija, þrins 6, 94, 235, 292 ufar 252f., 326, 439, 441, 557, 560
þrins tiguns 94 ufarassus 212, 326
þridja, þridjo (acc), þridjo 96 ufarassau 326
þridjo þata 101 ufarfullei* 262, 297, 326
*þriutan ufarfulls*, *ufarfull, ufarfulla 297, 321, 326
us-þriutan* 154 ufargudja* 15, 283, 294f., 310, 321, 322
þroþjan* 244 ufarhiminakundans (v. himinakunds*)
us-þroþjan*, us-þroþiþs ufarjaina 260
þrutsfill 234, 294, 322, 368, 403 ufarmeleins 287, 351
þrutsfills* 294 ufarmeli 351
þu, þuk, þus; jūs, izwis 82, 502 ufaro 261, 484
þeina (gen) 82, 132, 133 ufarranneins* 74
þu in himinam ufarswara* 295, 309, 321, 322
þu-ei, þuk-ei, þuz-ei 254, 392, 433, 490 ufhauseins 152
þugkjan*, 3sg þūhta, þūhtedun 200, 209, 251, ufhnaiweins* 92, 163f.
256, 389, 413, 449, 462, 485, 517, ufjo 148
526, 559 ufta 97, 240
ƕa izwis þugkeiþ 149, 200 *ufwairs, *ufwair, ufwaira 304, 321
þūhta (v. þugkjan*) 36 ugkis / uggkis (v. wit)
þūhtus* 338 -uh / -(u)h 37, 266, 269, 507, 511f., 560
þulains* 345 iþ X V-uh 18, 512
þulan, -þulaida, -þulaidedum* 205, 345, 461 ūhteigo / ohteigo 101
ga-þulan 205, 224 ulbandus* 137, 140, 146, 147, 174, 250, 419, 510, 560f.
us-þulan, us-þulaida, us-þulaidedum* 205, un- 514f.
250, 464f. unagands (cf. ni ogands) 515
þūsundi (þūsundj-) 93, 95, 249, 259, 554 unagei* 327
þūsundifaþs (þūsundifad-) 283, 320, 321 unairkns* 329, 488
þuthaurn* 298 unairknans / unairknai 77
þwahan, -þwoh, þwohun, -þwahans 144, 188, unaiwisks* 349, 377
375, 539 unanasiuniba 100, 394
unandhuliþs*, unandhuliþ 195 fidwor unkjane (hūsis) 481, 499, 506

unbairands*, *unbairando, unbairandei 515 unkunnands / ni kunnands 515
unbarnahs 373 unkunþi (acc) 351
unbaurans* 165 unkunþs (unkunþ-) 148, 351, 540
unbeistei* 327, 514 unledi 351
unbilaistiþs* 196 unleds (unled-) 175, 351, 442
unbimait* 315, 514 unliugaiþs* (unliugaid-) 204, 366
unbimaitans* 190 unlustus* 338, 514
unbrūks* 99, 489 unmahteigs, unmahteig, *unmahteiga 14,
und 253, 430, 436, 437, 448, 461, 464, 561 28, 148
augo und augin 253 unmanariggws* (unmanarig(g)w-) 320
ni und waiht 253, 538 unmildeis* 296, 329
und filu mais 253 unqeniþs* (unqenid-) 366
und þanei dag 437 unriurei* 327
und þatei 436, 561 unriurs* 73, 76, 107, 327
undar 261, 297 unrodjands 75, 198, 425, 515
undarists* 115 uns / unsis (v. weis)
undarleija* 297, 321 unsahtaba 100
undaro 261 unsaiƕands* 515
undaurnimats* 295 *unsaltans, unsaltan, *unsaltana 190
undiwanei* 327 unsar 58, 476, 477, 499, 505
unfagrs* 147 unsara (gen) (v. weis)
unfairlaistiþs* 196 unselei* 117, 130, 155, 327, 394, 559
unfrodei* 327, 464 unsels*, unsel, *unselja 150, 327, 513, 559
unfroþs (unfroþ- / unfrod-) 327, 496 unsibjis 257, 302, 487, 548, 549
unfroþans / unfrodans 77, 108 unsuti* 351
ungafairinoþs, *ungafairinoþ, ungafairinoda unsweran* (cf. sweran*) 514
(acc) 202, 411 unswerei* 327, 332, 333
ungaƕairbs* 77 unsweriþa* 330, 332, 333
ungakusans* 180 unswers 315, 327, 514
ungalaubeins* 117, 132 1.unte ‘as long as, until; still’ 430, 436,
ungalaubjands, un-galaubjando, un-galaubjandei 520, 561
109, 402, 524, 546 2.unte ‘because, for’ 112, 114. 185, 217, 238, 245,
ungastoþs* (ungastoþ-) 188 252, 385, 395, 430, 435, 470, 480,
ungawagiþs* (ungawagid-) 200 488, 507, 561
unhaili (acc) 351 3.unte ‘that’ (comp) 561
unhails* 14, 351 unþa- 561
unhanduwaurhts*, *unhanduwaurht, unþiuda* 514
unhanduwaurhta (acc) 306 unþiuþ (acc) 514, 524
unhrainei* 325, 327, 332, 333 unþiuþjan* (cf. þiuþjan*) 514
unhrainiþa 325, 330, 332, 333 unþwahans* 106, 188
unhrains, unhrain, unhrainja* 148, 327, 330, 364, unufbrikands* 183
415, 422, 524 unūhteigo 101
unhulþa 16, 550 unuslaisiþs 196
unhulþo (unhulþon-) 16, 41, 104, 113, 158, 364, unusspilloþs* (unusspillod-) 203
414, 418, 420 unwairþaba 100, 120, 463
unhunslags* 373 unwammei* 327
unkarja 120 unwamms*, *unwamm, unwamma 327
unkaureins* 63 unweis 30, 120
unkja* 481 unweniggo 99
unwerei* 201, 327, 525 fram winda wagid(ata) 248

unwerjan (v. *werjan) ga-wagjan, ga-wagida, ga-wagiþs*
unwita 351, 357, 420, 517, 552 (ga-wagid-) 200
unwitands (cf. ni witands) 351, 509, 515 *in-wagjan, in-wagida, in-wagidedun 200, 206
unwiti 351, 559 *us-wagjan, us-wagida, us-wagiþs* 200
urrinnanda (v. rinnan*) wahsjan, wohs, *wohsum, -wahsans 47, 188, 338,
urrists* 37 425, 562
us (uz-, ur-) 254f., 561 wahsjando 480, 498
us mis 255 us-wahsjan*, us-wahsans 188
usbalþei* 148 wahstus* 148, 338
usdaudei* 89, 148 wahtwo* (wahtwa*?) 261
usdaudo 101 wai 135, 372
usdaudoza 79 wai þaim qiþuhaftom 135
usdauþs* (usdaud-) 79 waian*, *waiwo, waiwoun, *waians 190, 218, 474,
usfairina 77 475, 501, 562, 564
usfarþo(ns?)* 510 *waiwo : waiwoun 43
usfilma* 237 *waibjan
usfulleins 342 bi-waibjan*, bi-waibiþs (bi-waibid-) 271f.
ushaista 77 waidedja 308
uslauseins* 36, 343 wáifairƕjan* (v. *fairƕjan)
usliþa waihjo* 98
sa usliþa 76 waihsta* 141, 290, 413
ussindo 68, 101, 487 waihstastains* 239, 290
usstass 132, 244, 426 waiht
usstiurei 305, 321 ni (…) waiht (nom) 91, 128, 439, 508, 538, 565
usstiuriba 305 waihts 62, 120, 252, 253, 517
uswaurhts*, *uswaurht, uswaurhta 487 ni (…) waiht (acc) 91, 152, 153, 164, 209,
usweihs* 297, 321, 563 447, 458, 517
uswena* 120 waihtai 15, 91, 138, 148, 152, 424
uswiss* 351 waila (waíla) 38, 204, 306, 354
uswissi* 114, 351 waila wisan 419
ut (ūt?) 266, 561 wailadeþs* (wailaded-) 293f., 489, 506
ut- 266 wailamerei* 333
uta 97, 561 wailamerjan (v. merjan)
þaim uta 98 wailaqiss (acc) 294
þans uta 428 wailaspillon* (v. spillon*)
utana 98 wainahs 371f., 488
sa utana unsar manna 98 wainei 464
utaþro 97 wair 58, 109, 113, 166, 259, 307, 389, 392, 421, 426,
436, 474, 492, 501, 552, 562
vvaghen (Crim.) 4, 368, 561 wairaleiko 318
wairila (wairilo?) 376
-waddjus 54, 286 wairpan 157, 167, 182, 236, 399, 536, 562
wadi 289, 351f. af-wairpan 149, 167, 182
wadjabokos (acc pl) 287, 289, 319 at-wairpan, at-warp, at-waurpans 182,
*wadjon 221, 222
ga-wadjon*, ga-wadjoda 166 fra-wairpan*, fra-waurpans 182, 264, 509
waggareis* (waggari*?) 363 ga-wairpan 222, 557
wagjan, 3sg -wagida, -wagidedun, wagiþs* (wagid-) us-wairpan, us-warp, us-waurpum,
200, 394 us-waurpans* 158, 182, 418, 443
wairs (1x) us-wandjan*, us-wandidedun 99, 201

*wairsists 78 waninassus* 326
wairsiza, wairsizo*, wairsizei 78, 79, 137 wans*, wan, wana (acc) 120, 148, 326
wairþ (acc) 145, 483, 499 ainamma wanans 138
wairþaba 120 ainis þus wan ist 148
wairþan, warþ, waúrþum, waúrþans 182, 238, 243, *wardjan 31
423, 428, 429, 430, 464, 562 fra-wardjan*, fra-wardidedum, fra-wardiþs*
þata waurþano 461 (fra-wardid-) 90, 98, 148, 488f.
waurþans dags gatils 408 frawardeiþ 106
wairþida (waírþida) 32, 92, 331 frawardida 488f.
*wairþjan -wards (e.g. daurawards) 562
ga-ga-wairþjan 350, 399 wargiþa 128, 330, 508
*wairþnan *wargjan
ga-ga-wairþnan 399 ga-wargjan*, ga-wargida 166, 330, 502
wairþs, wairþ (acc wairþata), *wairþa 120, 169, warjan*, waridedum 156, 414
170, 331, 390, 391, 410, 450f. warmjan*, warmidedun 388, 395, 404
wajamerei* 333 wasjan*, 3sg -wasida, wasidedum, wasiþs* (wasid-)
wajamereins 16, 159, 343, 559 31, 140, 168, 174, 201, 462, 471, 562f.
wajamerjan (v. merjan) and-wasjan*, and-wasidedun 201
wakan* 205, 539, 562 ga-wasjan*, ga-wasida, ga-wasidedun,
wakaiþ 205 ga-wasiþs / ga-wasids 140, 168,
þairh-wakan* 28, 261 174, 201, 390, 393, 502, 510, 553,
*wakjan 564
us-wakjan* 200 wasti (acc) 98, 137, 140, 149, 153, 168, 237, 272,
*waknan 430, 457, 471, 501, 506, 553, 557
ga-waknan* 206, 231 wato (wat(i)n-) 14, 62, 116, 122, 140, 151, 254, 516, 524
waldan 154, 311, 347, 562 waurd (waúrd) 14, 15, 40, 59, 112, 116, 132, 139, 148,
waldaiþ annom izwaraim 154 151, 153, 156, 159, 160, 161, 164, 171,
ga-waldan* 154 173, 197, 212, 222, 236, 280, 291,
waldufni 32, 71, 89, 171, 213, 226, 244, 261, 347f., 338, 372, 377, 387, 395, 405, 436,
391, 417f., 447, 465, 517, 539, 553 437, 461, 464, 474, 475, 499, 563
waldufneis / waldufnjis 48 waurdahs* 372, 485
walisa*, waliso, waliso 74, 354 waurdajiuka* 290
waljan* -waurdjan (-waúrdjan) 154, 208
ga-waljan*, ga-walida, ga-walidedum*, and-waurdjan* 154, 208
ga-waliþs* (ga-walid-) 200 filu-waurdjan* 208
þans gawalidans 81, 187, 247 ubil-waurdjan 154, 208
waltjan*, waltidedun 200f., 454 waurhtai (v. waurts)
us-waltjan*, 3sg us-waltida, us-waltidedun waurkjan, 3sg waurhta, waurhtedun, *waurhts 5,
200f. 170, 201, 226, 350, 400, 418, 426,
*walwjan 435, 439, 447, 489, 503, 515, 563
faur-walwjan* waurkeiþ 48
faurwalwjands 53 waurkjaima waurs(t)wa 110
wamba 144, 145, 221, 463, 525 waurkjands 12, 139
-wandjan 201, 343, 562 fra-waurkjan*, fra-waurhta 136, 201, 264, 455,
af-wandjan, 3sg af-wandida, af-wandidedun 201 487, 526, 559
*at-wandjan, 3sg at-wandida 201 frawaurhta mis 136
bi-wandjan* 201 ga-waurkjan, ga-waurhta, ga-waurhtedun 105,
ga-wandjan, 3sg ga-wandida, ga-wandidedun, 126, 201, 264, 387, 400, 426, 439,
ga-wandiþs 95, 165, 201, 394, 519 481, 499
in-wandjan 201 run gawaurhtedun sis 134, 201
us-waurkjan* 487 weitwodeins 344

waurms 261 weitwodi* 344, 352
waurstw (waurstw-) 33, 45, 50, 51, 53, 62, 88, 110, weitwodiþa (1x weitwodida) 205, 244, 330, 331,
131, 156, 242, 272, 293, 308, 386, 333, 484
456, 495 weitwodjan*, 3sg weitwodida, weitwodidedum
waurstwa (m -n-) 293, 308, 390 154, 201, 327, 344, 377, 485
waurstwei* 326 weitwodei 77
waurstwja 122, 127, 284, 308, 391 galiug weitwodidedun 291
waurts 384, 480 weitwoþs* (weitwod-) 132, 155, 201, 352, 563
waurhtai 147 wenjan*, 3sg wenida, wenidedum 201, 228, 243,
wegs 58, 200, 454, 455 412, 425, 448, 493
weiha 283, 364 wens 105, 412
1.weihan ‘fight’, waih 242 wepn* (pl wepna) 368, 563
waurdam weihan 15, 280 *werjan
2.weihan* ‘sanctify’, weihaiþs* (weihaid-) tuz-werjan* 201
402, 477 un-werjan, 3sg un-werida 201
ga-weihan*, ga-weihaida, ga-weihaids 402, *widan
437, 477, 524 ga-widan*, ga-waþ 334, 351
weihiþa 49, 330 in-widan* 471
weihnan* 206, 477 wigadeina* (-o*?) 320, 537
weihnai 464, 477 wigan
1.weihs, weih / weihata, weiha 75, 116, 119, 120, 131, ga-wigan*, ga-wigans*
155, 174, 185, 212, 216, 239, 327, 330, wigs 72, 107, 153, 214, 245, 246, 418, 470, 479, 498,
353, 391, 394, 421, 477, 484, 488, 500, 563
539, 563 wilja 137, 281, 360, 434, 453, 464, 473, 477, 501,
weihata 68f., 526, 554 557, 563
2.weihs (n) (acc) 62, 98, 262 godis wiljins 117
wein 2, 70, 290, 310, 563 wiljahalþei / wiljahalþein 313
wein juggata 69f., 92, 248 wiljan: wiljau, wileis/z, wili, wileima, wileiþ/d,
wein niujata / wein þata niujo 69f. wileina; pret wilda, wildedum 89,
weinabasi* 290, 352, 537 98, 120, 209, 213, 224, 225, 384,
weinagards* 4, 125, 290 387, 412, 420, 423, 438, 440, 441,
Crim. vvingart 4, 290 445, 447, 458, 495, 508, 517, 544,
weinatains 247, 290 554, 557, 563
weinatriu 25, 50, 51, 290 wileits 224, 227
weinatriwa 25, 290, 463 wilþeis, wilþi (acc), *wilþja 68
weindrugkja 310, 311, 547 wilwa 364
weis, uns(is) 82 wilwan, -walw, *wulwum, -wulwans 182, 564
uns / unsis 17, 83, 477 wulfos wilwandans 14, 471, 500
unsara (gen) 82, 132 dis-wilwan* 183
weiz-uþ 82 fra-wilwan, fra-walw, fra-wulwans 182
*weison frawalw 52, 182
ga-weison*, ga-weisoda, ga-weisodedum*, *windan
ga-weisoþs* (ga-weisod-) 132, 416 bi-windan*, bi-wand, *bi-wundum,
-weitan, -wait, -witun, *-witans 180 bi-wundans* 183
fra-weitan 180 du-ga-windan*
in-weitan*, in-wait, in-witun 180, 507 dugawindiþ sik 183
*weitjan us-windan*, us-wundun 183
fair-weitjan, fair-weitidedum* 264 winds 4, 141, 151, 153, 156, 218, 247, 248, 474, 475,
id-weitjan, id-weitida, id-weitidedun 157 501, 561, 564
weitwodei 217, 327, 333, 344, 352 skūra windis 116
wini- 564 wituts* <wituþs> 211, 225, 226, 228, 451

winnan, *wann, wunnum* 156, 183, 222, 223, 245, miþ-witan*, miþ-wait 209
348, 419, 423, 444, 453, 564 2.witan ‘watch, guard’, 3sg witaida, witaidedun 121,
*ga-winnan, gawunnuþ 183 154, 205, 261, 511
winno* 325, 333 ga-witan* 154, 205, 487
wintrus 14, 117, 554 gawitais (unsis) xxiv, 154, 205, 246, 486,
wintrau 141 503, 513
wintru wisa 14, 110 witodafasteis 290
winþiskauro* 298, 404 witodalaisareis* 290
*winþjan witodalaus 315
dis-winþjan* 298 witodeigo 101
wipja / wippja 117, 370 witoþ (witod-) 115, 119, 135, 153, 159, 199, 235, 241,
wis 29 251, 255, 280, 315, 356, 421, 430,
1.wisan ‘be, exist’: pret was, wesum 31, 104, 450, 454, 469, 488, 526, 539, 554,
186, 214f., 317, 327, 419, 424–7, 565
428, 564 witubni* 32, 348, 505
im, is, ist, sind 215 wiþra 245, 249, 255f., 266, 478
iþ weiseis her 557 wiþrawairþs*, wiþrawairþ, wiþrawairþa* 148, 225
siju 104, 227 þata wiþrawairþo 101
si(j)um, si(j)uþ 29, 215 wlaiton*, wlaitoda 415, 416
þat-ist 106 wlits 45, 148
was-uh þan / was-uþ þan 511 wlit skalkis 283
wes- / weis- 215 wods (wod-) 364
wis- / weis- 215 wokains* 345
wisands 97, 110, 119, 140, 214, 221, 239, 252, wokrs 491
315, 392, 483, 515 wopjan, 3sg wopida, wopidedun 20, 108, 133,
miþ-wisan* 273 201, 208, 277
miþwas 273 at-wopjan, 3sg at-wopida, at-wopidedun 201,
ufar-wisan* 273 220, 277
ufarist 273 *uf-wopjan, 3sg uf-wopida 201
2.wisan ‘feast, devour’ 186, 564 jah uf-wopida ~ ub-uh-wopida 512, 560
wisa*, wisam 564 wraiqs* 243
bi-wisan* 186 wrakja 115, 453
fra-wisan*, frawas 151, 186 wratodus* 32, 339
3.wisan ‘stay, remain’, was, wesun 14, 186f., 503, 564 wraton*, wratoda, wratodedun 339
wisa 14, 110, 564 wrikan*, wrak, wrekun, wrikans* 178, 187, 459
wisiþ 564 wrik- 45
ga-wisan*, ga-was 186, 564 fra-wrikan*, fra-wrekun 187
miþ-gawisan* 564 ga-wrikan* 187
miþgawisandans 564 wrohjan, 3sg wrohida, wrohidedun, wrohiþs 202,
wists* 372, 417, 484, 495 208, 228
wit, ugkis / uggkis 82, 225, 441 wrohida 228
1.witan ‘know’: wait, witum, pret wissa, wissedun *fra-wrohjan, fra-wrohiþs 202, 460
88, 209, 210f., 214, 223, 327, 348, wruggo* 550
357, 383, 399, 407, 425, 440, 441, 442, wulfs 14, 38, 262, 405, 471, 500, 565
445, 446, 450, 451, 460, 548, 546f. wulla* 362
(iþ is) wiss-uh 445, 512 wullareis 362
þu witeis 214 wulþags*, wulþag, wulþaga (acc) 17, 32
waist, wissa 30 wulþriza* 79, 565
witum 45 mais wulþrizans 79, 137, 565
wulþrs* 68, 538, 565 wulwa (acc) 317, 428

wulþrais / wulþris 538, 565 *wundon
wulþus 19, 75, 115, 118, 135, 206, 227, 231, 326, 333, ga-wundon*
338, 340, 393, 476, 484, 493, 505, 517 gawondondans 348
wul|þus 9 wunds* 320, 348
leika wulþaus seinis 118 wundufni* 348
INDEX OF NA MES A ND PLACES
Proper nouns (especially personal and place names) in the Gothic corpus and other sources that appear
in this grammar are listed alphabetically here.
Abiaþar* 251 Beþanian 235

Abraham 136, 143, 167, 170, 255 Beþanias 235
<Abrahama|> 537 Lazarus af Beþanias 254
Adam 203 Beþanijin / Beþaniïn / Biþaniïn 29, 235
Aífaíson 37, 39 Beþlahaim 253, 434, 464
Aileiaizair* 12, 33
Aileiaizeris 12 Daikapaulis*
Aileisabaiþ (nom, acc, dat) 92, 104, 159, Daikapaulaios 93, 250
174, 553 Damasko* (dat Damaskon, Damaskai) 121, 154
Airmodamis 12 Daniel 490, 492
Aírmogaíneis 35 Daweid 50, 121, 168, 384, 434, 441,
Aiwneika* 49 486, 530
Aiwwa 50 sun(a)u Daweidis 108, 426
Akaja / Axaïa (Akaïj-) 24, 50 Didimus 33
Akajus*
Akaje / Akaïje (gen pl) 24, 121 Esaw (acc) 40, 49
Akwla 28
Alamoþs* (Alamod-) 481 Fareisaius 41, 127, 137, 159, 160, 203
*Alareiks 3 þai Fareisaieis 65
Alfaius* 66, 114 Filippus 29, 512, 523
Amalafriþas 482 voc Filippu 61
Ananeias* / Ananias* 490, 492
Andraias 46, 523 Gabriel 34f., 46
Antiaukia* 50, 89 Gaddarenus* 121
Areimaþaia* Gaisericus, Geisericus, Gesiric 39
Areimaþaias 235 Gaïus 24
Asia* 50 Galateis 108
Attila 376 Galatia* 50
Aþeineis* 157 Galeilaia* 121, 135, 262
Auneiseifaurus* 33 Nazaraiþ Galeilaias 115, 124, 248
Azareias* 490, 492 Gaulgauþa (acc) 121
Gautoi 2
Barabba / Barabbas 163, 557 Gr(e)ut(h)ungi 361
Barnabas 226, 361 Gudila 376
Barteimaius* Gudilub 481
Barteimaiaus blinda 358 Gundemar / Gondemar 41
Batwins* 301 Gutones 358
Beþania 235 Gutþiuda* 8, 9, 237
Index of Names and Places 685
Haileisaius* 251 Kreks (Krek-) 558

Heleias / Helias 33, 90, 172, 252, 461, 523, 554 Krispus 25
Herodes / Herodis 213, 252, 408 Kustanteinus 40
Herodes sa taitrarkes 65
Herodia (Herodiad-) 188, 408 Laiwweis 12, 50, 289
Laiueis 12
Iairusalem 246, 416 Laiwwi þana Alfaiaus 66, 114
þizai nu Ierusalem 66 Laiwweiteis 50
Iakobus 114 Lazarus 61, 149, 235, 254
Iakoba (Iakobaus) 144 Lazarus sa dauþa 73, 358
Iauppein (dat) 493 Lod 254, 490, 492
Iaurdanus* 218, 237 Lukas 240, 491
Iaurdanau / 1x Jaurdanau 52, 259 Lwstrws 25, 33
Iesus (ïesus) 24, 61, 227, 238, 239, 241, 246, 248,
251, 255, 256, 271, 273, 387, 391, 401, 421, Mailkeis 12
433, 445, 446, 461, 487, 495, 505, 512, 523, Makidonja* 122
556, 557 acc Makidonja / Makaidonja 50
ïesus sa magus 65 gen Makidonais / Makedonais 122
Inmanuel 495 Malkus 149
Ioanan 43 Mariam / Maria 50, 159, 553
Iohannes (1x Iohannis) 122, 140, 145, 159, 171, 174, Marja 50, 254
187, 213, 226, 248, 404, 424, 427, 510 Marja so Iakobis 114
Iohannes sa daupjands 65, 81 Markus 361
Iosef (Iosef- / 1x Ioseb-) 26, 104, 213, 235, 400 Merila 376, 482
Ioses* Merobaudes 39
Iūse (Iūsezis*? for Iosezis) 144 Mesael 490, 492
Isak* 241 Moses / 1x Mosez (Mos(ez)-) 115, 165, 228, 243,
Iskarjotes / Iskariotes / Iskarioteis 515 342, 389, 422, 454, 457, 557
Israel 105, 121, 189, 254, 392, 458, 490, 492
Iudaia* 121, 153, 252, 423 Nabukaúdaúnaúsaúr 39, 513
Iudaius / Judaius 41, 126, 167, 208, 254, 259, 377, ?Naúbaímbaír xxv, 26
381, 413, 435 Nauel 254, 437, 490, 491
nom pl Iudaieis (26x) / Judaieis (1Cor 12:13A) Nazaraiþ 115, 121, 124, 248
þiudan(s) Iudaie 108, 169, 440, 447 Nazorenus*
iudaiwisk- (v. Judáiwisk-) Nazorenu / Nazorenai 61, 108
ïudaiwisko 24, 100, 378 Nikaudemus / Nek- / Neik- 238
ïudaiwiskon 24, 52, 378 Nwmfas* 25
Iūdās (1x Jūdās) 277, 403, 513
Iudan Iakobaus 114 Paíntekuste* 41
Iudins 121, 144 Paitrus (Paítrus) 12, 35, 37, 40, 97, 144, 175, 239,
Iūse (v. Ioses) 270, 387, 388, 395, 404, 491
in garda Paitraus 113
Jaurdanau (v. Iaurdanus*) Pauntius* (Paunti/e-/Puntius*) 40
Jiuleis xxv, 95 Puntiau Peilatau 153
Judaius (v. Iudaius) Pawlus 40, 49, 385, 486
judaiwisks* / ïudaiwisk- 24, 74, 377 Peilatus 153, 160, 523
Kaballarja 481 Qartus 28

Kafarnaum (voc, acc) 35, 76
Kaisar* 3, 144, 165, 165, 288, 462, 557 Rudericus / Rodericus 41
Kajafa 381 Runilo 376
686 Index of Names and Places
Sabaillius* 3 Tulgilo 376

Samareites Turcilingi 361
gen pl Samareite 455 Twkeikus / Twkekus 24
Samaria* 262 Twra (acc) 36, 121, 262
Saraipta (acc) 121 Twreis* 121
Satana / Satanas 129, 259, 405
Saudauma (Saúdaúma) 35, 37, 492 Þaddaiu (acc) 29
gen Sau|daumos 37, 254, 490 Þaiaufeilus* 35, 61
Saulaumon 393, 544 batista Þaiaufeilu 75
Saur 369 *Þiudareiks 3
Saurini 148, 369, 377
Seidona (acc) 121, 262 Ufitahari 482
Saraipta Seidonais 121
Seidoneis* 121 Vesi 361
Seimon 144, 249, 404, 491
Sindila 376 Wereka* 301, 482
Sunjaifriþas 482 Wiljarīþ 482
Swmaion Winigildus 564
Simaion 12 * Wulfila 7, 376
( )
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
anaphor / anaphora (cont.) nom/acc ambiguity of neuters 222, 223,

loss of reflexivization with participles 388, 391 441, 459
non-finite clauses 383, 387 frame 162
reciprocal 392f. cataphora 65
simple / pseudo-reflexive 112, 205, 220, 386, change of state 124, 216, 218, 219, 402
393–6, 404 clitic 37, 83, 85f., 122, 262, 266, 268f., 448, 503,
swe- clause exception 389f. 506ff., 511f., 516, 537, 559, 560
two-reflexive system 385f. linearization 506ff.
animacy 277, 401 Wackernagel 507, 510
anticausative 386, 393, 394ff. cluster simplification 30
non-argument reflexive 388, 393, 395f. cognate structure 14, 109f., 141
antisymmetry / asymmetry 380 collective 84, 350, 353, 373, 399, 530, 535,
apposition / appositional 543, 563
adjunct (q.v.) comitative 234, 239, 249, 250
compound constituents 313f. comparative 68, 71, 74, 77ff., 354, 524, 538
D-adj 503 complementizer
epithet 65, 73 du 417
in attributive function 73ff. ei 430, 447, 451–4
intensive predicate of identity 384f. ibai (aufto) 447, 453
noun / NP 81, 104, 106, 121, 170, 220, 254 izei 438
participle 76, 112, 404, 408, 409 jabai 456, 503
phrase headed by pronoun 476 niba(i) 456f.
pronoun 381, 409 ?nih 458, 544f.
aspect 396–401 phrase (CP) 380, 511, 559
grammatical 396f. relativizing 432ff.
lexical (Aktionsart) 396f. sei 438
perfective / perfectivization 397ff. swaei, (swa)swe 454f.
telicity 397, 399–401 þammei 442–5
verbal prefixes 397–402 þan 435, 556
auxiliary 216, 380, 501, 502, 508–11, 519, 520, 562 þatei 430, 442, 444f.
differences from copula 509 factive and epistemic verbs and subject
linearization with V 501, 502, 508–11, 520 clauses 430, 442
nonomission of 509 not with verbs of willing, imagining, supposing,
asking, purposives 442
background information þeei 434, 452, 453
discourse particle 511 þei 435, 452
participle 403, 556 3.unte 561
benefactive 133, 135, 149, 167, 245, 246 completion
binding temporal 401, 402, 476
asymmetrical c-command 390 conditional clauses 455–9
domain 386ff. complementizer
extended in accusative and infinitive 387 jabai 456, 503
local binder 107, 383, 386ff. niba(i) 456f.
null subject 383, 387, 394 ?nih 458, 544f.
sein- 388ff. counterfactual 457f.
exceptions 390ff. hypothetical 457f.
subjective genitive 391 indicative 456f.
mixed 458f.
c-command 380 consonants in word-final position
case spirant devoicing 27
accommodation 441 voiced obstruents 27f.
constituent structure 497–501 Fientive 193, 206, 215, 218

control (v. infinitive) [νfient[state]] 193
correlative 97, 435, 442ff., 524, 554 figura etymologica (v. cognate structure)
Crimean 4ff., 12, 13, 15, 19, 23, 25, 85, 132, 254, 560 final clauses 454
Fin(ite) Phrase 434, 512
D-words 63–6, 71, 73ff., 76f., 82, 404f., 418f., 498, finite subordination 429f., 445–68
499, 503, 504, 506 Force (P[hrase] / indicator) 274, 380,
null 71, 73f., 77 434, 507
dative 133–68 Functional Phrase (FP) 380, 397
experiencer (q.v.) future tense substitutes 176, 181, 204, 213f., 220, 519
matrix 73, 146, 419
referential 134f., 144, 244, 258, 260, 440 gapping
dativus D-gapping 65
commodi aut incommodi 135 du 417
ethicus 135 inflectional (nonexisting) 165
finalis 133 preverb reduction 275ff.
iudicantis 135 geminates 29
declarative verb 206, 207f., 401, 429, 445, 512 genitive 85, 91, 113–33, 142, 143f., 159ff.
definiteness 66, 277, 327f., 401, 403 absence of D-words 506
omission of head noun / headless NP 66, accusative-genitive verbs 170f., 174
76f., 480 adverbial 68, 101, 122
demonstrative 63–6, 77, 103, 503, 504, 506, alternation with dative 144, 145
518, 559 complement of agentive PrP 81
distal 64, 72, 539 linearization 499, 501, 505f.
neutral to deixis 83 no partitive with allata 70
proximal 64 stimulus (with experiencer verbs) 111f.
dentals in contact 30 with adverbs 99
determined (automatically) Germanic
genitives 506 East 6f., 53, 55, 378, 518
lexical items 65 North 43, 53, 55, 282, 284, 295, 311, 322, 344,
names 65, 504 364, 378, 518, 520
nouns in prepositional phrases 504 Northwest 36, 282, 291, 322, 355
vocatives 75 West 6, 43, 53, 55, 282, 284, 295, 296, 299, 303,
discourse anaphor (v. anaphor) 311, 316, 322, 326, 328, 344, 349, 355, 361,
dual 224–8 364, 375, 378, 518, 520
dualistic pronominals 92f. grammatically questionable constructions 242,
428, 455, 503, 506
epistemic Grimm’s Law (GL) 30, 31, 48, 518
adverb 99
modality 103, 380, 409 hierarchical structure 379f.
verb 401, 445, 449f. Holtzmann’s Law 53, 56
event actuality 402 homoioteleuton 14, 472, 475, 493
experiencer 102f.,
accusative 110ff. imperative 192, 380, 461, 464, 465f.
dative 107, 112, 142, 149, 151, 198, 204, 248 aspect of Greek 398
expletive subject 105, 381 coordination 431f.
null expletive pro 111, 418 dual 225
linearization 502f., 510, 513, 520, 545
factive predicates 409, 442, 445, 450 none for modal verbs in PGmc. 210
factive emotive 401, 443, 451 optative substitute 210, 465f., 470, 510
semifactive 401, 450 third person 176
infinitive 409–19 nei 517

accusative and (v. accusative and infinitive) nene 518
command 466 ni 515ff.
control polarity 90ff.
controller 396, 415f. un- 514f.
different kinds 409 null subject 152, 381f.
object 154, 220, 414f., 466, 467 binder 383, 387, 394
subject 412ff. controller 412
modal verb complement 411f. nom case 150, 152
none for modal verbs in PGmc. 210 null expletive pro (v. expletive subject)
null (PRO) subject 220, 409, 412, 416, 421 of infinitives (v. infinitive)
periphrastic passive 220, 223 of participles (v. participle)
finite substitution 410 numerals 93ff., 125f.
purposive 243f. cardinal 93ff.
bare 415f. linearization 506
du 416ff. ordinal 95f.
separation from 18, 417
(quasi-)gerundial with þata 418f. object clause 419f.
voice underspecification 176, 219–22 old (vs. new) information 65, 70, 82, 142, 418,
Infl Phrase (IP) 380 506, 548
intensive predicate of identity 384f. optative (syntax)
interjection conditional clauses (q.v.)
jai 109 dependent 447ff.
o 109 fearing 447
sai 479, 547 hoping, supposing 448
wai 135 inquiry 448f.
wainei 464 embedded question 449
volition 447
Kluge’s Law (KL) 31, 530, 537, 551 implied indirect discourse 434
independent 438ff., 449ff., 461f., 464–8
language contact 2f., 31, 39, 85, 283, 359, 407, 519 boulomaic modalities 464f.
localization 15–18 doubt 461f.
lexical 15ff. eventuality and potentiality 466ff.
morphological, syntactic 17f. reinforcing mode 465f.
mood and modality reduction 462f.
malefactive 133, 135 mood shift
margin gloss 9, 11, 13, 14, 23, 44, 154, 180, 181, 182. in relative clauses 438ff.
190, 201, 205, 207, 209, 255, 281, 296, with epistemic verbs 449f.
302, 317, 433, 488f., 514, 528, 549 with negation 450f.
matches and mismatches obligatory 459ff.
agreement (q.v.) purpose clauses 451–4
tense and mood 228–31, 398f. tense harmony 448f., 451–4
maximize onset 46, 348
Mood / Force (head of Sentence) 274, 380 participle (nonpast / incompletive) 403–9
mood and modality reduction 462f. absolute (v. absolute participle structures)
appositional 76, 112, 404, 408, 409
negation 90ff., 267f., 273f., 514–18 durativity 403, 404, 405
adjunction 267f., 273f. null (PRO) subject 160, 387, 394, 404
concord 517 perception verb complement 405f.
double 517 postverbal manner adverbial 406
purposive (?) 406 purpose clauses

relative clause substitute 404f. finite 398, 451–4
particle infinitival (v. infinitive)
coordinating imperatives 431f.
linearization 267f., 506ff. quantifier / Q 67, 72, 126f., 472, 497,
sentence discourse 506ff. 500, 514
verbal 266–70 linearization 500, 504, 506
partitive structures 124–30 questions
adjectival quantifiers 126f. embedded 89, 442, 446, 448f., 460, 511
negation 128ff. rhetorical 462, 507, 517, 537, 545, 559
numerals and nouns 125f. wh- 427, 503, 513, 545
pronouns 127f. quirky subject 106f., 112, 172, 384, 389
verbs 124f.
passive reciprocal (v. anaphor)
impersonal 131, 138, 150, 154f. reflective verb 401, 429, 445f.
infinitival 176, 219–22 reflexive / reflexivization (v. anaphor)
periphrastic 215–19, 508–11 relative structures 432–45
encroachment on synthetic 216f. adverbials and temporal conjunctions
pseudo-reflexive 220, 393f. 434ff.
synthetic 216, 217, 219, 519 complementizer 432ff., 444f.
patronymics 66, 114, 362 simple and compound 444f.
perception predicate 405f., 420, 421f. core 436ff.
pseudo-perception predicate 401, 445 correlative 442ff.
perfect / preterite free 440ff.
development in Germanic 191, 519f. mood 438ff.
predicate substantive vs. attributive 440, 444
adjective 66, 72ff., 372, 401, 502 repetition 14, 278, 279
adjunct 72 result (consecutive) clauses 429, 436, 453, 454f.,
noun 107f. 478, 553
secondary 73 resultative 209, 230, 365, 398, 519f.
preposition (P) attained-state 218
incorporation 163, 217, 270–5 entailed-state 217, 218
with null object 237, 272, 443 target-stative 193, 206
prepositional phrase (PP)
absence of D-words 76, 77, 473, 498, 499, 504 semifactive (v. factive predicates)
Prokosch’s Law 46f., 348 set nouns 324
prolepsis 65 Sievers’ Law (SL) 29, 43, 47f., 56, 342f.
pronoun small clause (SC) 169f., 175, 419f., 421, 424,
distributive 84, 86f., 88, 89, 92, 93 428, 429
dualistic 92f. SC particle 169, 175, 233, 553, 554
indefinite 84, 85f., 87 sociative 133, 146, 152, 165, 353, 399
interrogative 84, 85f., 88 states
qualitative 89 permanent 74, 117, 327
quantitative 89 result 170, 193, 218, 397, 399, 520
linearization 502f. temporary (title) 65, 327
personal 82ff. variable 327
reflexive 382f. subject focus construction 18, 512
relative 432ff., 436ff. superlative 77f., 101, 115, 126f., 297, 317
relativized personal pronouns 433 switch reference 409, 447, 451
substitute 89f. syllabification 9, 29, 46f., 49, 330, 348
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

The Oxford Gothic Grammar (D. Gary Miller)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Gothic Grammar (D. Gary Miller)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Gothic Grammar

Frontispiece. An extract from the Bologna fragment. Bologna, Archivio della

I The Goths and Gothic l

1.1 Brief history of the Goths 1

2 Alphabet and phono1ogy 21

2.1 The Gothic alphabet 21

3 The nominal system 58

4 Case functions 102

4.1 Adpositions and cases 102

4.50 Double object verbs 161

5 The verbal syste1n 176

5.1 Introduction 176

6.1 P-words 232

6.41 P-incorporation in Gothic 271

7.1 Introduction 280

8 Nominal derivation 323

8.1 Introduction 323

8.11 -opus I -odus (M -u-) 339

9 Verbal and sentential syntax: 379

9.1 Syntactic introduction 379

9. 15 The nonpast (inco1n pletive) participle 403

10 Gothic texts 469

10.1 Matthew 7:12-24 469

11 Linearization and typology 497

Appendix: Supplemental information 523

Purpose and intended audience

The study of Gothic

Barring inevitable misreadings, early editions of enduring value include Gabelentz

is indispensable. See also his Academia.eduprofile. The searchable Wulfila Project

for extremely careful copy-editing. Ela Kotkowska forced me to dig up references I

[c6] sixth century

For early events, approximate dating is frequently all that is available.

Citation of Gothic forms

Based on infrared photographs made in 1960, Ebbinghaus (1975) read naubaimbar.

Citation of Indo-European roots

* —reconstructed (of earlier or proto-forms); ill-formed (of sentences/words)

† —with a year, e.g. [†450] = died (of people)

AG Altnordische Grammatik, Vol. 1: Altisländische und altnorwegische

EDHIL Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. By Alwin

GS Die gothische Sprache. By Leo Meyer. Berlin: Weidmann (1869)

LHE2 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: A Linguistic History of

bce Before Common Era

f feminine (in glosses)

ibid. in the same work

M Middle (Greek etc.)

O Old (with language names)

P phrase (after N, V, etc.)

Q question particle (in glosses)

S subject (with V, O, etc.)

V vowel (phonological contexts)

XP phrase of any lexical-syntactic category

The Goths and Gothic

1.1 Brief history of the Goths

The Oxford Gothic Grammar. First edition. D. Gary Miller

1.2 Crimean Gothic

1.3 Possible East Germanic runes

1.4 Wulfila and Gothic documents

1.5 The Gothic corpus

C (2 leaves) has fragments of Matthew 25:38–46, 26:1–3, 65–75, 27:1, overlapping on

Codex Bononiensis: The ‘Bologna fragment’

Codex Vindobonensis / Gotica Vindobonensia

1.6 The Bible translation

1.7 Lexical localization

1.8 Morphological and syntactic localization

‘leading’, | (Sk 3.1.16f.) = dat sg m ain| aþarammeh ‘each’,

Noun paradigms containing IE -y- (Gmc. -j-) strive to maintain a duple-timed