Crimean Gothic: Analysis and Etymology of the Corpus 0915838451, 9780915838455

Citation preview

STUDIA LINGUISTIC A ET PHILOLOGICA

editor ALPHONSE JUILLAND Stanford University

Vo

l

. 6

ANMA LIBRI

CRIMEAN GOTHIC ANALYSIS AND ETYMOLOGY OF THE CORPUS

Macdonald stearns, Jr.

1978

ANMA L1BR1

® 1978 by ANMA LIBRI & Co. P.O. Box 876, Saratoga, Calif. 95070 All rights reserved ISBN 0-915838-45-1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present work is an extensively expanded revision of a dissertation submitted to the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley, in spring 1973. For counsel and aid during the writing of this dissertation, I am indebted to the members of my committee, Madison S. Beeler (U.C. Berkeley), Orrin Warner Robinson III (Stanford University), and especially to my dissertation director, Herbert Penzl (U.C. Berkeley). I should also like to express my appreciation to Eric P. Hamp (University of Chicago), who read and commented on the manus­ cript. Of course, I am solely responsible for the content of this study, for the scholars whom I thank here do not necessarily agree with the conclusions pre­ sented herein, and any omissions, inaccuracies, or other shortcomings are mine alone. A special word of thanks goes to my wife, Kazuko, who has assisted and encouraged me throughout the various stages of this project. M.D.S.

In Memory of my Father

ABBREVIATIONS

Arm BG CG CGk Dan EGmc Engl ENHG Finn Gk Gmc Hung IE Ir Lat LG Lith ME MFlem MGk MHG MLG MNethl ModGk MPers NCG

Armenian Bible Gothic Crimean Gothic Crimean Greek Danish East Germanic English Early New High German Finnish Greek Germanic Hungarian Indo-European Irish Latin Low German Lithuanian Middle English Middle Flemish Mariupol Greek Middle High German Middle Low German Middle Netherlands Modern Greek Middle Persian Native Crimean Gothic

Nethl NGmc NHG NNethl Norw OBreton OComish OCS OE OFris OHG Olcel OIr OLF ON ONorw OPol OPruss OS OSwed PGmc PIE Russ Skt Turk WGmc

Netherlands North Germanic New High German New Netherlands Norwegian Old Breton Old Cornish Old Church Slavic Old English Old Frisian Old High German Old Icelandic Old Irish Old Low Franconian Old Norse Old Norwegian Old Polish Old Prussian Old Saxon Old Swedish Proto-Germanic Proto-Indo-European Russian Sanskrit Turkish West Germanic

Contents

Acknowledgments Abbreviations

v vii

PART I: ANALYSIS

1

0. Introduction

3

1. Reports of the Language of the Crimean Goths 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Introductory Reports preceding Busbecq’s Busbecq’s Report: The Crimean Gothic Corpus Reports Following Busbecq’s

4 4 4 9 15

2. A Chronological Survey of Crimean Gothic Studies 2.1 16th Century 2.2 17th Century 2.3 18th Century 2.4 19th Century 2.5 20th Century

27 27 27 27 28

3. Problems and Procedures 3.1 Problems 3.2 Procedures

37 37 39

4. Textual Criticism

41

4.1 The Textual Tradition 4.2 Errors by Copyist and Typesetter 5. Busbecq’s Informant 5.1 Nationality of the Informant 5.2 Competence of the Informant 5.3 Native Language of the Informant 5.3.1 Identification

41 42 45 45 47 48 48

X

6.

Crimean Gothic

5.3.2 Methodology of Reconstruction 5.3.3 The Vowels of Crimean Greek 5.3.4 The Consonants of Crimean Greek 5.4 Distortion by the Nonnative Informant 5.4.1 The Vowels 5.4.2 The Consonants

48 50 51 52 53 57

Bu sbecq : T he

64 64 65 68 69 71 71 72 73 74 80

‘f i e l d w

orker

’

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Biography Linguistic Background The Recording of the Crimean Gothic Data Busbecq’s Competence Distortion by the ‘Fieldworker’ 6.5.1 Phonological Interference 6.5.2 Orthographic Influence 6.6 Busbecq’s System of Transcription 6.6.1 The Vowels (alphabetically arranged) 6.6.2 The Consonants (alphabetically arranged)

7.

C r im

ean

G o t h ic

P r o t o -G

e r m a n ic

P h o n o l o g y : It s

Developm

ent

from

7.1 The Vowels 7.1.1 Short Vowels in Stressed Syllable 7.1.2 Long Vowels and Diphthongs in Stressed Syllable 7.1.3 Vowels in Unstressed Syllable 7.1.4 The Vowel System of Native Crimean Gothic 7.2 The Consonants 7.2.1 Labials 7.2.2 Dentals 7.2.3 Velars 7.2.4 Sibilants 7.2.5 Liquids, Nasals, andSemivowels 7.2.6 The Consonant Systemof Native Crimean Gothic 8.

C r im e a n G o t h ic M o r p h o l o g y

8.1

Morphology 8.1.1 Nouns 8.1.2 Pronouns 8.1.3 Adjectives

and

Sy n ta x

87 87 87 89 90 91 92 92 93 95 97 98 99 101 101 101 102 103

Contents

8.1.4 Adverb 8.1.5 Numerals 8.1.6 Verbs 8.2 Syntax

9. The Position of Crimean Gothic in the Family of Germanic Languages 9.0 Introductory 9.1 Phonology 9.1.1 Vowels 9.1.2 Consonants 9.2 Morphology 9.3 Lexicon 9.4 Summary and Conclusion

xi

103 104 105 107

109 109 110 110 112 114 115 118

10. T he Cantilena

121

PART II: ETY M O LO G Y

125

Bibliography of Works Cited

165

xii Crimean Gothic

ILLUSTRATIONS Plate I: Facsimile of Busbequius 1589: title page

21

Plate II: Facsimile of Busbequius 1589:135r

22

Plate III: Facsimile of Busbequius 1589:135v

23

Plate IV: Facsimile of Busbequius 1589:136r

24

Plate V: Facsimile of Busbequius 1589:136v

25

Plate VI: Facsimile of Busbequius 1589:137r

26

Figure 1: The vowel phonemes and allophones of 16th century Crimean Greek Figure 2: The consonant phonemes of 16th century Crimean Greek

50 51

Figure 3: The consonants of Crimean Greek contrasted to those of Proto-Germanic Figure 4: The development of short vowels in Crimean Gothic

58 88

Figure 5: The development of long vowels and diphthongs in Crimean Gothic

90

Figure 6: The development of unstressed vowels in Crimean Gothic

91

Figure 7: The vowel system of Native Crimean Gothic

91

Figure 8: The development of the labials in Crimean Gothic

93

Figure 9: The development of the dentals in Crimean Gothic

95

Figure 10: The development of the velars in Crimean Gothic

96

Figure 11 : The development of the sibilants in Crimean Gothic

98

Figure 12: The development of the liquids, nasals, and semivowels in Crimean Gothic Figure 13: The consonant system of NativeCrimean Gothic

99 99

PART I

ANALYSIS

0. Introduction

The so-called ‘Crimean Gothic’ (hereafter CG) vocabulary was recorded in Con­ stantinople during the period 1560-62 by Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, a Flemish nobleman who was serving Ferdinand I of Austria as Imperial Ambassador to the Ottoman Porte. This vocabulary, which Busbecq includes in a report in the last of his four ‘Turkish letters’, consists of two lists of words and phrases glossed in Latin, eighteen cardinal numbers, and the unglossed, three-line beginning of a song, the cantilena, all told a mere 101 separate forms. These meager data are the only traces of a Germanic language once spoken in the Crimea, but extinct since the end of the 18th century. The circumstances of the recording of the CG data and of their transmission to us make their analysis problematic. Busbecq’s Crimean informant was not a native speaker of CG, and thus the forms he provided were sometimes faulty, influenced by his native language, a dialect of Greek. In such a way, informant distortion has veiled the shape of some of the underlying forms in Native CG (hereafter NCG). Busbecq, the ‘linguistic fieldworker’, recorded the CG vocabulary in an inconsis­ tent, ambiguous transcription: This makes an interpretation of the informant’s pronunciation of the CG words difficult, sometimes uncertain. The most authorita­ tive extant version of Busbecq’s report is its first unauthorized publication, a Paris printing of 1589. It is apparent that a number of the CG forms here had been miscopied in the printer’s Vorlage, or were misset by the compositor, so that Busbecq’s transcription has been garbled, and the shape of the underlying NCG forms further obscured. Part I of this study surveys the various reports surrounding CG, examines the circumstances of Busbecq’s recording of the CG vocabulary and of its transmis­ sion to us, reviews the pertinent previous scholarship, and offers a linguistic analysis of the data. It is shown that CG cannot have descended from the Bible Gothic of Wulfila (hereafter BG), but that it developed as a separate East Germanic dialect from an early date. Part II provides a phonological interpretation and etymological discussion of the individual CG forms.

1. Reports of the Language of the Crimean Goths

1.0 Introductory The Goths had migrated to the western shores of the Black Sea and into the Tauric Chersonese (the Crimea) by the middle of the third century A.D. (cf. Vasiliev 1936:3).1 Since that time the Goths of the Crimea12 are frequently mentioned. The discussion which follows is limited to those reports which make reference to the language of these Goths. The only report which provides CG linguistic data is the 16th century account of Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador to the Ottoman Porte. However, several references to CG precede and follow Busbecq’s report.3 1.1 Reports Preceding Busbecq s Cyril [c. 850] The first reference to the language of the Goths of the Crimea appears in the Vita of Saint Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs (Constantine the Philosopher), who came to the Crimea in the middle of the ninth century to preach the gospel to the Khazars. Here the Goths are listed among those peoples who read books and who praise God, each in its own language.4 It is assumed that this reference is to the Goths Cyril had known in the Crimea(cf. Loewe 1896:114; Vasiliev 1936:114). This is one of only 1 The history of the Goths in the Crimea has been treated by Tomaschek (1881), Braun (1890), Loewe (1896), Vasiliev (1936), Schwarz (1953), and recently by H0st (1971). 2 Loewe (1896:111) points out that the name ‘Goths’ was applied by the Greeks to all Germanic peoples in the Black Sea area. 3 The reports of the language of the Crimean Goths are discussed by Tomaschek (1881:26-68), Braun (1890:52-69), Loewe (1896:113-79), H0st (1971:72-87). 4 The pertinent section is found in Chapter XVI of the Vita of Saint Cyril and is cited here from the edition by Dümmler and Miklosich (1870:227): My ze narodü mnogo znajemu knigy umëjuste i bogu slavu vûzdajuste, küzdo svoimü jezykomü. Javë ze sutü si: Arúmeni, Perûsi, Avazügi, Iveri, Sugüdi, GotuOif Ovri, Turusi, Kozari, Aravljane, Jegvpüti i Suri i ini mnozi. (“ We know many peoples who understand books, and who praise God, each in its own language. Such, clearly, are these: the Armenians, the Persians, the Abasgians, the Iberians, the Sogdians, the Goths, the Avars, the Turks, the Khazars, the Arabs, the Egyptians, the Syrians and many others” ) [emphasis mine]. The 1851 edition by Safafik is cited by Braun (1890:52-53 fn. t).

Reports of the Language of the Crimean Goths

5

two reports which suggest that the Goths of the Crimea may have read the scriptures in their own language. Was this written language that of Wulfila’s Bible translation? Liewehr ( 1952:287-88) believes that a Crimean Goth acquainted Cyril with this translation. Das Annolied [c. 1080] An intriguing, possible reference to Germanic-speaking peoples in the Crimean area is found in the Early Middle High German Annolied (c. 1080). Verses 310-18 say of the Bavarians: Dere geslehte quam wilin ere, Von Arménie der hêrin, Dâ Nôê ûz der arkin ging, Dür diz olizui von der tûvin intfteng. Iri ceichin noch du archa havit Uf den bergin Ararâî. Man sagit daz dâr in halvin noch sin Die dir Diutschin sprechen Ingegin Indiä vili verro. Massmann (1841:352) associates this reference with the Goths of the Crimea (cf. also Stutz 1966:82, H0st 1971:73-74), whereas Loewe (1896:78) links it to the ‘Kaukasusgermanen’. In any case it is “ die erste dunkle Kunde in Deutschland von der Existenz deutscher Sprache am schwarzen Meere“ (Loewe 1896:78). Ruysbroek [1253] Wilhelm Ruysbroek (Ruysbroeck, Rubruk, Rubriquis), a Flemish Franciscan missionary, visited the Crimean Peninsula in 1253 during a mission to the Orient. In his Itinerarium, he reports the presence of Goths in the Crimea, and here for the first time we are told of the Germanic character of their language. I cite here the pertinent text following Beazley (1903:146-47):5*7& sunt quadraginta castella inter Kersouam* & Soldaiam, quorum quodlibetfere habet proprium idioma: inter quos erant multi Goti, quorum idioma est Teutonicum. Pachymeres [c. 1290] The 13th century historian Georgios Pachymeres (c. 1242-1310) tells us in his History7 that the Alans, the Zikhi, the (Crimean) Goths, and the Russians, as well 5 Beazley follows the first edition (1598) by Richard Hakluyt. # Kersouam for Kersonam, i.e. Cherson. 7 I cite here the pertinent passage (Pachymeres 1835:345); wç ôè \p ó v o v T pißopevov, cTnpuyyvyre^