Gothic Etymological Dictionary

Preface

When the Brill publishing firm in conjunction with Sigmund Feist’s daughter, Professor Elisabeth Hirsch, asked me to undertake an English edition of his Gotisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch,I assumed as essential maintenance of its eminent characteristics. These are:

1. attention to Gothic textual data,
2. inclusion of cognates in the other Germanic languages,
3. inclusion of extra-Germanic cognates for native and borrowed words,
4. citation of important references and philological information.

Throughout Feist emphasized data, avoiding large numbers of reconstructed forms even when they could readily have been proposed. It was possible to maintain these characteristics, which had become increasingly prominent in successive editions, especially with the help of important publica¬tions since 1939, the date of the third edition.

Entries
Typically, each entry in the new edition consists of four paragraphs, as for Al. aba, A3, abrs, and many more. The first paragraph presents the Gothic data, with brief morphological classification, Greek originals, English glosses and one or more references to the sources. Such references are now readily determined through the valuable ‘word-indices’ of Tollenaere and Jones (1976). Their useful work makes it possible to locate easily all instances in which a form is used. Even more important, Gothic is the only major Indo-European language for which we can determine the attested forms and indicate hypothetical constructs. In keeping with this possibility, non-attested forms are indicated with an asterisk. Derived forms are generally included with the basic forms. The index of Gothic words permits their ready location in the dictionary.

In the second paragraph, citation of cognates from the other Germanic languages follows a specific order, ranging from Runic, through North Germanic, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Fran¬conian, Old Saxon and Old High German. Different formations may require more than one sequence; gaps in attestation may bring about unfilled lists. Modern English reflexes, if closely related, are marked with a dagger (†); if less closely related, they are labeled NE. Following Feist’s lead, few reconstructions are provided.

The fourth paragraph, and possibly further paragraphs for words of special interest, such as G117. *Gut-þiuda, deals with disputed etymologies, as for A1. aba, or with linguistic and philological problems, as for A4. ada. By contrast, straightforward entries, like A2.abba, are briefly presented.

References
After two centuries and more of attention, the wealth of previous scholarship cannot be listed in its entirety. It is quite impossible to cite all treatments of a given word, even when as here the standard etymological dictionaries are often cited rather than separate studies. The bibliography, based on both the third and the present edition, may indicate by its extent the magnitude of the problem, and the difficulty of producing a compact dictionary like Feist’s if one set out to incorporate all references and to maintain all of his commentary on them. To keep the dictionary within reasonable bounds much of the commentary given by Feist (1939) in reduced type has been omitted here.

In keeping with modern bibliographical procedures references consist of author, year and page—or to section for a few works, e.g. Meyer-Lübke 1935, Vendryès 1959-. More frequently noted commemorative volumes are cited by giving the name of the scholar honored, preceded by the letter F, even if they have a separate title, as indicated in the bibliography. Of major importance in following these procedures is ready location of every reference, through standard citations, in keeping with practices maintained and refined for the central bibliographical compilations: Bibliographie Linguistique, The MLA International Bibliography. A glance at their lists of journals will make it quite clear why formerly current abbreviations like BB, KZ, PBB can no longer be used. To maintain the practices of the far less complex nineteenth century scholarship leads to obscurantism or at best to disruption of communication. The current form of reference has the further advantage of providing in the text the date of a contribution, except when a work is long under way, like Mayrhofer’s Sanskrit etymological dictionary, or when the standard mode of reference is to a compilation of articles and notes, like Wilhelm Schulze’s of 1966.

Current etymological study
Advances in etymological studies, as Feist foresaw, have been greatly aided by improved knowledge of the culture of the speakers of Indo-European languages, knowledge achieved largely through advances in archeology. Advances have also resulted from improved knowledge of the languages, especially Anatolian and Mycenaean Greek, and from greater clarity regarding constructs once labeled Illyrian, and the like.

The contributions to our understanding of early periods will continue, as archeological tech¬niques are further refined and more work is carried out. By one important contribution we now recognize groups speaking the same language as based on social and political alignments, not racial. Further, it is quite clear that the early home of the Indo-Europeans was in the area of the Caspian, not cent-ral Europe. A comprehensive summary of recent views is fortunately available in the important book by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984). The full implications for Gothic studies are not yet determined, nor even the implications of archeological findings concerning northern Europe around the beginning of our era. The increasing information will no doubt continue to expand our understanding of linguistic problems.

Some difficulties have already been clarified by theories supported with data from the Anatolian languages and from the general conclusions summarized in typological studies. The laryngeal theory is now generally accepted, with differences on details. The glottalic theory has also attracted many. It has implications primarily for the early period of Proto-Germanic and contemporary languages, rather than for languages as late as Gothic. Other topics that have been widely discussed, such as the values of the Gothic spellings ai, au, do not affect the etymologies of the words concerned. Many of the etymological procedures, and much of the entries included by Feist in the third edition have been maintained, a testimony to the validity of his work.

There have also been improvements in etymological procedures, as noted by Yakov Malkiel, Etymological Dictionaries (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1976) and by others, for example, by contributors to Das etymologische Wörterbuch, edited by Alfred Bammesberger (Regensburg: Pustet, 1983). Among the most important requirements is a complete list of all references given in any work, in accordance with contemporary bibliographical principles.

Even an area as limited and specialized as Gothic etymology is virtually overwhelmed with the attention that has been given to the pertinent problems. Advances in dealing with some problems have been made in undertakings of such importance that these may be singled out here for mention. The ‘Bibliographia Gotica’, begun by Fernand Mossé Medieval Studies 12:249-324 (1950), continued in subsequent articles in the same journal by him (1953), by Marchand (1957) and by Ebbinghaus (1956, 1974), may be mentioned first. Of similar assistance is the survey of etymological research by Devlamminck and Jucquois (1977). For the principal texts we must still rely on the Streitberg edition (1919-28), though Bennett’s treatment of Skeireins (1960) and Stearns’s of Busbecq’s lists (1978) are now fundamental for any concern with these texts. Since, however, other handbooks refer to the Skeireins in accordance with Streitberg’s edition, his references are maintained, followed after a slash by references to Bennett (1960). For the last leaf of the Codex Argenteus, Scardigli’s presentation is useful (1973). And the monograph on Latin loanwords by Corazza (1969) is equally essential. Any user of the dictionary will come to rely on these works, even without repeated specific references in the text, just as users of the previous edition relied on Grienberger (1900).

If the publications for Germanic have burgeoned, those for the Indo-European languages in gen-eral are almost overwhelming. Fortunately we now have comprehensive etymological dic¬tionaries for all of the branches of the Indo-European family, some to be sure not yet complete. Attention to these provides users with access to much additional publication, as well as greater depth of infor-mation for the languages concerned. When one contemplates the admirable set of etymological dictionaries produced recently by: Mayrhofer for Sanskrit, Frisk and Chantraine for Greek, Walde/Hofmann and Ernout and Meillet for Latin, Vendryès for Old Irish, Fraenkel for Lithuanian and Toporov for Old Prussian, Vasmer and Trubachev for Slavic, Greppin for Ar¬menian, Huld for Albanian, Tischler and Puhvel for Hittite, Windekens for Tocharian, with others underway, the recent period in linguistics may well come to be known for its work in etymology as much as for the attention to theory, which has been enjoying the limelight.

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

In general, the representations for reconstructed languages are phonemic. Like Meillet and many others, I recognize only palato-velar and labio-velar phonemes for Proto-Indo-European, but I may mark palatal allophones. Phonetic symbols may also be used for allophones of the resonants, rather than exclusively the phonemic /w y r lm n/. Notation of the vowels presents problems, largely because of the development of the vocalic system of Proto-Indo-European through various stages, as noted in Proto-Indo-European Phonology (1952). For ease of inter¬pretation and reference to earlier handbooks I use a late system, with short and long /e а о/ for Proto-Indo-European, as well as /ǝ/.

Forms from the various languages are given in standard transcription, though underlying rather than sandhi forms may be cited, as for the nominative singular of nouns in Sanskrit. Transcription close to the manuscripts is followed for Gothic, so that diacritics over vowel symbols are omitted. For transcription of Cyrillic a system similar to that of the Modern Language Association is used.

Typefaces distinguish items of the entries. Headwords are in boldface type, also when referred to outside their principal entries. Further Gothic forms are in italics, as are forms of other languages. Glosses are indicated by slanted roman type.

Reference is made in the indices to headwords, rather than to pages.

Occasionally it is useful to indicate the occurrence of words in pertinent materials of other languages, such as the Old English Beowulf or the Old High German Hildebrandslied or the Greek and Latin classics. The items so cited are taken as unproblematic, and accordingly any standard text may be consulted for additional consideration, such as Klaeber’s edition of the Beowulf. Streitberg’s edition of the Gothic texts has the further merit of including with bibliographical data the pertinent sections of late classical authors like Jordanes, Isidor of Seville and others who refer to the Goths. For classical texts, like Homer and Livy, users may consult their favorite editions. The less widely accessible texts, such as the early laws, find ready access in the Monumenta Germaniae historica, Germanenrechte and other important sources, as noted in handbooks like Amira/Eckhardt 1960-67 I;xiii-xvi.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Work towards the preparation of the dictionary got under way in 1978, when after some exploration F. C. Wieder, Jr., the Director of J. J. Brill at the time, asked me to undertake the fourth edition in English. I assented, with the provision that adequate support be available. From the start only a computerized project seemed desirable. The Research Institute of The University of Texas at Austin provided initial funding for bibliographical review, for which I am grateful to Dr. William S. Livingston, Vice President and Dean for Graduate Studies. Saul Migron carried out the review admirably, laying the groundwork for the procedures since followed. Subsequently Dr. Migron also wrote some entries.

Application for a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities was then rejected. In 1980 the endowment provided a matching grant. Dr. Livingston and Dr. Peter Flawn, at that time President of the University, were willing to provide the matching funds, but under the remarkable provision for research support in this country, state funds are not allowed to match federal grants. Matching funds were then assured by Dr. and the late Mrs. E. Douglas Mitchell. The preparation of the volume was made possible (in part) by a grant from the Program for Research Tools of the National Endowment for the Humanities, an independent federal agency. The project would have been impossible without the matching funds, and further funds from Dr. Mitchell, himself a brilliant teacher and scholar in the humanities. Supplemental funding was also provided by Dr. Robert D. King, Dean, College of Liberal Arts of the University. It is a pleasure to acknowledge support from two scholars who might themselves have carried out the project.

The funds were almost entirely used to support personnel, since the University continued toprovide research facilities, including computer time. For this assistance I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Gerhard J. Fonken, Executive Vice President and Provost of the University.

Among personnel contributing to the project were students supported by the admirable Work-Study Program underwritten with federal funds. This Program furthered the scholarly training of the appointees as they made their contributions, especially to the bibliography. They were: Michelle Marie Caillouet, Julie Ann DeWitt, Dannah Edwards, Stacey Gerken, Ileana Gon¬zales, Monica Gonzales, Tom Horn, Antonio Medeiros, Alejandra Molina, Carmen Principe, Patricia Rosales, Deborah Ann Wean, and especially Philip Andrew Libby and Deborah Holmes Bryson, who became admirable bibliographers. These students worked under the direction of Helen-Jo Jakusz Hewitt, who contributed the bibliography and also provided important editing for the text itself. As the title page indicates, Dr. Hewitt performed many roles of a co-author through skillful editing and other assistance in addition to preparation of the bibliography.

Scrutiny of the scholarship was undertaken initially by Dr. Linn Johnk. He also in conjunction with Dr. Sandra A. Eveland adapted a database, with the aim of developing a store that might be used for production of dictionaries of other Indo-European languages. Information was entered into the database by Dr. Johnk and Janet Johnson. The system, designed for handling business data, was unfortunately inadequate for the multiple items of linguistic study.

Programming thereupon used was produced initially by Andrew Biskin, and subsequently by Jennifer Oppenheim, whose skill in devising programs for the various tasks of storing the data, checking the stores, formatting the text, designing necessary symbols, was of major importance to the project.

Inputting of dictionary entries was performed by Molly Conway, Douglas Fix, Stanford Rappaport, and largely by Susan H. Chapman, whose care and skills deserve special recognition. An important part of the inputting involved painstaking entry of symbols which direct the production of special characters as well as other tasks, such as the preparation of the indices. That these, and the other requirements of the book were achieved so smoothly, is due to the devoted attention of Ms. Chapman and Ms. Oppenheim.

Entries for the letters M N O P Q R Þ, some T’s and U’s, were prepared by Dr. Carol Justus, the others by the major author, who reviewed all of the entries and is responsible for the final version of the work. For suggestions on it, I express thanks to Professors L. Zgusta and Edgar Polomé. I thank especially Professor Ernst A. Ebbinghaus for his careful reading of the text in its near-final form.

For coordination of activities, and also bibliographical work, I am grateful to Gail Roy, Adminis-trative Assistant of the Center. The assistance of the many devoted members of the Linguistics Research Center, as well as those providing funds, and also the complexities of produc¬ing an etymological dictionary in a highly studied language raise my esteem of the scholars who have produced the handbooks and scholarship which have brought Indo-European studies to their currently high level.