Influence on English, in regard to semitic

[Alchopwn 1,779]

On 11/19/2019 at 10:21 AM, Desertrat56 said:

Were the druids celts?

It is a very arguable issue.  The answer is "sometimes".  The home of the druids was on the holy island of Anglesey in what is now Wales, which means it was in origin a Cymric, not Celtic cult, but there were definitely Gallic druids, who were Celts by blood and culture. 

On 1/12/2020 at 1:20 PM, Piney said:

There is a real Semite speaker and translator here. @Alchopwn

Allow me to endorse your efforts here Piney. 

The Goths would actually have called themselves "Gutthiuda".  Our present pronunciation "goth" is a Greek corruption of a Germanic language, translated back into English, which is has plenty of Germanic roots. There is a clear connection between the words "good" and "god", and the term Gutthiuda likely means not "good people" but "Spilled people" originating from the word we know today as "to gut/gutted" i.e. to spill forth like entrails.  These were people on the move, spilling onto new land, and gutting was a holy act involved in animal sacrifice so it carried positive, not negative connotations, but certainly no Christian connotations.

Certainly no Aramaic or Semitic obviously involved.  It should be pointed out that the earliest Bible compiled was the Gothic Bible however (link), and they were early Arian converts. Ah, but who did the converting?  Bishop Wulfila, who was of mixed Gothic/Cappadocian Greek blood.  So the main linguistic influence would have been Greek, and not a Semitic language. Indeed the Gothic Bible is a clever fusion of Gothic runes and the Cyrillic alphabet. Gradually the Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Langobardi (the last tribe of that migration and often forgotten) drift west and become more influenced by Latin as they remove themselves from the Eastern Roman Empire into the Western Roman Empire that primarily use Latin.  

Edited January 13 by Alchopwn

[jaylemurph 10,910]

I’ve got some problems with the above. 

Firstly, the etymologies of god and good are distinct all the way back to their individual PIE roots. God comes from the verb “to pour,” through the sense of ritual invocation. Good comes from the verb “to unite.” Citation available at wiktionary.org — and note the warning the two words are not related in each entry. 

Secondly, I have done substantial recent research into the history of the Goths, and nothing I’m familiar with supports that origin of their name. It appears nowhere in their own writings (the Origio Gothiae or Jordanes) nor does it appear anywhere in Wolfram’s History of the Goths or The Goths in the Third and Fourth Centuries, the chief modern critical studies of the group. 

Finally, Ulfilas’ Gothic translation of the Bible was not the “earliest Bible compiled.” The key word is “translation” — it had to be translated out of an existing text (an early Greek version of the Bible). The earliest standard Greek version was the Septuagint, completed by 132 CE in Alexandria. In fact, we don’t even have an original copy of Ufilas’ text. What we have is a later copy (the Codex Argenteus) from the 500s, well after the standard form if the Bible was determined.

—Jaylemurph 

Edited January 13 by jaylemurph

[Alchopwn 1,779]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

I’ve got some problems with the above. 

Firstly, the etymologies of god and good are distinct all the way back to their individual PIE roots. God comes from the verb “to pour,” through the sense of ritual invocation. Good comes from the verb “to unite.” Citation available at wiktionary.org — and note the warning the two words are not related in each entry. 

Secondly, I have done substantial recent research into the history of the Goths, and nothing I’m familiar with supports that origin of their name. It appears nowhere in their own writings (the Origio Gothiae or Jordanes) nor does it appear anywhere in Wolfram’s History of the Goths or The Goths in the Third and Fourth Centuries, the chief modern critical studies of the group. 

Finally, Ulfilas’ Gothic translation of the Bible was not the “earliest Bible compiled.” The key word is “translation” — it had to be translated out of an existing text (an early Greek version of the Bible). The earliest standard Greek version was the Septuagint, completed by 132 CE in Alexandria. In fact, we don’t even have an original copy of Ufilas’ text. What we have is a later copy (the Codex Argenteus) from the 500s, well after the standard form if the Bible was determined.

—Jaylemurph 

Firstly.  As this is too much like my day job, I am not very interested in contesting this.  I would point out that the notion of pouring and the notion of uniting are not mutually exclusive, especially in analogies of genealogy where bloodlines are "poured" together and "mixed" like the waters of rivers at their confluence.  That being said,  as you are correct to point out, there is clear indication that these words are not of common origin despite the fact they are somewhat homophonic, and often apparent homophonic relationships aren't an accident.

Secondly.  There are quite a few examples of Gothic writing beyond the Codex Argenteus, but many are fragmentary, existing as marginalia for example.  These are not commonly available or accessible, and it is very rare for the public to show any interest in them at all. The word Gutthiuda is also spelled with a single "t" by some, if that helps.  Apparently certain 19th Century scholars of Germanic Languages argued about it, but I have no interest in continuing their pettiness.

Finally.  The Septuagint is a Greek version of the Torah, and doesn't include the New Testament, so how is it a Bible?  Bibles are Christian documents and include a lot more gospels and letters than the Jewish seven books would tolerate, and yet certain cultural appropriators want to claim that the Jews have a Bible, in order to legitimate their theft of a tradition that they have no decent claim on.  For my money Jews have the Torah and Christians have Bibles.  That being said, is the Gothic Bible the oldest? IDK.  What I do know is that the Codex Argentus was one of the oldest, and was certainly an encouragement for the Byzantine Christians to get their act together and make their own, as correspondence among the church fathers of the era indicates, and provided at least partial impetus for the beginning of Councils of Nicea.

Edited January 13 by Alchopwn

[Piney 54,753]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

I’ve got some problems with the above. 

Jay, what's getting me so bent out of shape about Vastland is they are not even European American. They're a Native, and a Mission Native to boot. Which mean's they were slaves to the Priest and suffered forced cultural destruction and physical torture yet he would promote this stuff along with Mormon ideology in other threads. 

It would make sense if he was a Yenghii. Not someone who's people survived that kind of ethnic genocide.  

[jaylemurph 10,910]

Can you provide any citation for the idea that Ulfilas’ translation triggered the convening of the Council of Nicaea? You seem to speculate, rampantly, without adhering any too closely to fact. 

Again, as I point out above, the Codex Argenteus is not the same thing as Ulfilas’ original manuscript. Maybe you could explain how a document from the sixth century affected a fourth century synod?

—Jaylemurph 

[Alchopwn 1,779]

14 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Can you provide any citation for the idea that Ulfilas’ translation triggered the convening of the Council of Nicaea? You seem to speculate, rampantly, without adhering any too closely to fact. 

I originally read it in Gibbons I believe.  

14 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Again, as I point out above, the Codex Argenteus is not the same thing as Ulfilas’ original manuscript. Maybe you could explain how a document from the sixth century affected a fourth century synod?

Obviously, but we have no reason to believe that the original manuscript was substantially different, ergo, why split hairs?

Edited January 14 by Alchopwn

[jaylemurph 10,910]

8 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I originally read it in Gibbons I believe.  

Obviously, but we have no reason to believe that the original manuscript was substantially different, ergo, why split hairs?

“Diligence and accuracy are the only merits which a historical writer may ascribe to himself.”

—Gibbons

A rather on point quote. Thank you for the reference!

—Jaylemurph