Some sources also give a date of 750 BC for the earliest expansion out of southern Scandinavia and northern Germany along the North Sea coast towards the mouth of the Rhine.[3]
As a Germanic language, Gothic is a part of theIndo-European language family. It is the earliest Germanic language that is attested in any sizable texts, but it lacks any modern descendants. The oldest documents in Gothic date back to the fourth century. The language was in decline by the mid-sixth century, partly because of the military defeat of the Goths at the hands of theFranks, the elimination of the Goths in Italy, and geographic isolation (in Spain, the Gothic language lost its last and probably already declining function as a church language when theVisigoths converted fromArianism toNicene Christianity in 589).[4] The language survived as a domestic language in theIberian Peninsula (modern-day Spain and Portugal) as late as the eighth century. Gothic-seeming terms are found in manuscripts subsequent to this date, but these may or may not belong to the same language.
A language known asCrimean Gothic survived in isolated mountain regions inCrimea as late as the second half of the 18th century. Lacking certain sound changes characteristic of Gothic, however, Crimean Gothic cannot be a lineal descendant of the language attested in the Codex Argenteus.[5][6]
The existence of such early attested texts makes Gothic a language of considerable interest incomparative linguistics.
Only a few documents in Gothic have survived – not enough for a complete reconstruction of the language. Most Gothic-language sources are translations or glosses of other languages (namely,Greek), so foreign linguistic elements most certainly influenced the texts. These are the primary sources:
The largest body of surviving documentation consists of variouscodices, mostly from the sixth century, copying theBible translation that was commissioned by theArian bishopUlfilas (Wulfila, 311–382), leader of a community ofVisigothic Christians in theRoman province ofMoesia (modern-daySerbia,Bulgaria/Romania). He commissioned a translation into the Gothic language of theGreek Bible, of which translation roughly three-quarters of theNew Testament and some fragments of theOld Testament have survived. The extant translated texts, produced by several scholars, are collected in the following codices and in one inscription:
Codex Argenteus (Uppsala), including the Speyer fragment: 188 leaves. The best-preserved Gothic manuscript, dating from the sixth century, it was preserved and transmitted by northernOstrogoths in modern-day Italy. It contains a large portion of the fourgospels. Since it is a translation from Greek, the language of theCodex Argenteus is replete with borrowed Greek words and Greek usages. The syntax in particular is often copied directly from the Greek.
Codex Ambrosianus (Milan) and theCodex Taurinensis (Turin): Five parts, totaling 193 leaves. It contains scattered passages from the New Testament (including parts of the gospels and theEpistles), from theOld Testament (Nehemiah), and some commentaries known asSkeireins. The text likely had been somewhat modified by copyists.
Codex Gissensis (Gießen): One leaf with fragments ofLuke 23–24 (apparently a Gothic-Latindiglot) was found in an excavation inArsinoë in Egypt in 1907 and was destroyed by water damage in 1945, after copies had already been made by researchers.
Codex Vaticanus Latinus 5750 (Vatican City): Three leaves, pages 57–58, 59–60, and 61–62 of theSkeireins. This is a fragment ofCodex Ambrosianus E.
Gothica Bononiensia (also known as theCodex Bononiensis or "Bologna fragment"), apalimpsest fragment, discovered in 2009, of two folios with what appears to be a sermon, containing besides non-biblical text a number of direct Bible quotes and allusions, both from previously attested parts of the Gothic Bible (the text is clearly taken from Ulfilas's translation) and from previously unattested ones (e.g.,Psalms,Genesis).[7]
Fragmenta Pannonica (also known as theHács-Béndekpuszta fragments orTabella Hungarica), which consist of fragments of a 1 mm thick lead plate with remnants of verses from the Gospels.
The Mangup Graffiti: five inscriptions written in the Gothic alphabet discovered in 2015 from the basilica church ofMangup,Crimea. The graffiti all date from the mid-9th century, making this perhaps the youngest attestation of the Gothic alphabet (being seemingly slightly more recent than the two Carolingian alphabets listed below). The five texts include a quotation from the otherwise unattested Psalm 76 and some prayers; the language is not noticeably different from Wulfila's and only contains words known from other parts of the Gothic Bible.[8]
A scattering of minor fragments: two deeds (theNaples andArezzo deeds, on papyri), two Carolingian-era Gothic alphabets recorded in otherwise non-Gothic manuscripts (respectively the late eighth to early ninth centuryGothica Vindobonensia[9] and the ninth-centuryGothica Parisina[10]), a calendar (in theCodex Ambrosianus A), glosses found in a number of manuscripts and a fewrunic inscriptions (between three and 13) that are known or suspected to be Gothic: some scholars believe that these inscriptions are not at all Gothic.[11]Krause thought that several names in an Indian inscription were possibly Gothic.[12]
Only fragments of the Gothic translation of the Bible have been preserved. The translation was apparently done in the Balkans region by people in close contact with Greek Christian culture. The Gothic Bible was apparently used by theVisigoths in Occitania until theloss of Visigothic Occitania at the start of the 6th century,[13] in VisigothicIberia until about 700, and perhaps for a time in Italy, the Balkans, and Ukraine until at least the mid-9th century. During the extermination ofArianism, Trinitarian Christians probably overwrote many texts in Gothic as palimpsests, or alternatively collected and burned Gothic documents. Apart from biblical texts, the only substantial Gothic document that still exists – and the only lengthy text known to have been composed originally in the Gothic language – is theSkeireins, a few pages of commentary on theGospel of John.[citation needed]
Very few medieval secondary sources make reference to the Gothic language after about 800. InDe incrementis ecclesiae Christianae (840–842),Walafrid Strabo, a Frankish monk who lived inSwabia, writes of a group of monks who reported that even then certain peoples inScythia (Dobruja), especially aroundTomis, spoke asermo Theotiscus ('Germanic language'), the language of the Gothic translation of the Bible, and that they used such a liturgy.[14]
Many writers of the medieval texts that mention theGoths used the wordGoths to mean any Germanic people in eastern Europe (such as theVarangians), many of whom certainly did not use the Gothic language as known from the Gothic Bible. Some writers even referred toSlavic-speaking people as "Goths". However, it is clear from Ulfilas's translation that the Gothic language belongs with the Germanic language-group, not with Slavic.
Generally, the term "Gothic language" refers to the language ofUlfilas, but the attestations themselves date largely from the 6th century, long after Ulfilas had died.[citation needed]
A fewGothic runic inscriptions were found across Europe, but due to early Christianization of the Goths, the Runic writing was quickly replaced by the newly invented Gothic alphabet.
Ulfilas's Gothic, as well as that of theSkeireins and various other manuscripts, was written using an alphabet that was most likely invented by Ulfilas himself for his translation. Some scholars (such as Braune) claim that it was derived from theGreek alphabet only, while others maintain that there are some Gothic letters ofRunic orLatin origin.
Gothic words can be transliterated into theLatin script.Transliteration mirrors the conventions of the native alphabet, such as writing long/iː/ asei. There are two variant transliteration systems: a "raw" one that directly represents the original Gothic script and a "normalized" one that addsdiacritics (macrons andacute accents) to certain vowels to clarify the pronunciation or, in certain cases, to indicate theProto-Germanic origin of the vowel in question. The latter system is usually used in the academic literature.
Normal environment of occurrence (in native words)
Paradigmatically alternating sound in other environments
Proto-Germanic origin
𐌰
a
a
/a/
Everywhere
—
/ɑ/
ā
/aː/
Before/h/,/hʷ/
Does not occur
/ãː/ (before/h/)
𐌰𐌹
ai
aí
/ɛ/
Before/h/,/hʷ/,/r/
i/i/
/e/,/i/
ai
/ɛː/
Before vowels
ē/eː/
/ɛː/,/eː/
ái
/ɛː/
Not before vowels
aj/aj/
/ɑi/
𐌰𐌿
au
aú
/ɔ/
Before/h/,/hʷ/,/r/
u/u/
/u/
au
/ɔː/
Before vowels
ō/oː/
/ɔː/
áu
/ɔː/
Not before vowels
aw/aw/
/ɑu/
𐌴
e
ē
/eː/
Not before vowels
ai/ɛː/
/ɛː/,/eː/
𐌴𐌹
ei
ei
/iː/
Everywhere
—
/iː/;/ĩː/ (before/h/)
𐌹
i
i
/i/
Everywhere except before/h/,/hʷ/,/r/
aí/ɛ/
/e/,/i/
𐌹𐌿
iu
iu
/iu/
Not before vowels
iw/iw/
/eu/ (and its allophone[iu])
𐍉
o
ō
/oː/
Not before vowels
au/ɔː/
/ɔː/
𐌿
u
u
/u/
Everywhere except before/h/,/hʷ/,/r/
aú/ɔ/
/u/
ū
/uː/
Everywhere
—
/uː/;/ũː/ (before/h/)
Notes:
The Gothic letters𐌴,𐍉, transliteratede,o, were used only for longclose-mid vowels (/eː,oː/). The digraphs𐌰𐌹,𐌰𐌿, transliteratedai,au, were used foropen-mid vowels (short/ɛ,ɔ/ and long/ɛː,ɔː/).
The "normal environment of occurrence" refers to native words. In foreign words, these environments are often greatly disturbed. For example, the short sounds/ɛ/ and/i/ alternate in native words in a nearlyallophonic way, with/ɛ/ occurring in native words only before the consonants/h/,/hʷ/,/r/ while/i/ occurs everywhere else (nevertheless, there are a few exceptions such as/i/ before/r/ inhiri,/ɛ/ consistently in thereduplicating syllable of certain past-tense verbs regardless of the following consonant, which indicate that these sounds had become phonemicized). In foreign borrowings, however,/ɛ/ and/i/ occur freely in all environments, reflecting the corresponding vowel quality in the source language.
Paradigmatic alterations can occur either intra-paradigm (between two different forms within a specificparadigm) or cross-paradigm (between the same form in two different paradigms of the same class). Examples of intra-paradigm alternation aregawi/ɡa.wi/'district (nom.)' vs.gáujis/ɡɔː.jis/'district (gen.)';mawi/ma.wi/'maiden (nom.)' vs.máujōs/mɔː.joːs/'maiden (gen.)';þiwi/θi.wi/'maiden (nom.)' vs.þiujōs/θiu.joːs/'maiden (gen.)';taui/tɔː.i/'deed (nom.)' vs.tōjis/toː.jis/'deed (gen.)';náus/nɔːs/'corpse (nom.)' vs.naweis/na.wiːs/'corpses (nom.)';triu/triu/??'tree (nom.)' vs.triwis/tri.wis/'tree (gen.)';táujan/tɔː.jan/'to do' vs.tawida/ta.wi.ða/'I/he did';stōjan/stoː.jan/'to judge' vs.stauida/stɔː.i.ða/'I/he judged'. Examples of cross-paradigm alternation are Class IV verbsqiman/kʷiman/'to come' vs.baíran/bɛran/'to carry, to bear',qumans/kʷumans/'(having) come' vs.baúrans/bɔrans/'(having) carried'; Class VIIb verbslētan/leː.tan/'to let' vs.saian/sɛː.an/'to sow' (note similar preteriteslaílōt/lɛ.loːt/'I/he let',saísō/sɛ.soː/'I/he sowed'). A combination of intra- and cross-paradigm alternation occurs in Class Vsniwan/sni.wan/'to hasten' vs.snáu/snɔː/'I/he hastened' (expected *snaw, compareqiman'to come',qam'I/he came').
The carefully maintained alternations betweeniu andiw suggest that𐌹𐌿 may have been something other than[iu]. Various possibilities have been suggested (for example, high central or high back unrounded vowels, such as[ɨ][ʉ][ɯ]); under these theories, the spelling ofiu is derived from the fact that the sound alternates withiw before a vowel, based on the similar alternationsau andaw. The most common theory, however, simply posits/iu/ as the pronunciation ofiu.
The following diacritics, not used in the original writing system, are sometimes added to vowel letters in transliterations:
Theacute accent´ may be added to the digraphsai,au (written𐌰𐌹,𐌰𐌿 in Ufilas's alphabet) to indicate their etymological origin inCommon Germanic, following a system devised byJacob Grimm:
aí is used for the sound derived from the Proto-Germanic short vowels *e and *i before/h/ and/r/.
ái is used for the sound derived from the Proto-Germanicdiphthong *ai. Some scholars assume this sound remained a diphthong in Gothic. However, Ulfilas was highly consistent in other spelling inventions, which makes it unlikely that he assigned two different sounds to the same digraph. Furthermore, he consistently used the digraph to represent Greekαι, which was then certainly amonophthong. A monophthongal value is accepted byEduard Prokosch in his influentialA Common Germanic Grammar.[15] It had earlier been accepted byJoseph Wright but only in an appendix to hisGrammar of the Gothic Language.[16]
ai is used for the sound derived from the Common Germanic long vowel *ē before a vowel.
áu is used for the sound derived from Common Germanic diphthong *au. It cannot be related to a Greek digraph, sinceαυ then represented a sequence of a vowel and a spirant (fricative) consonant, which Ulfilas transcribed asaw in representing Greek words. Nevertheless, the argument based on simplicity is accepted by some influential scholars.[15][16]
Themacron¯ may be added to the lettersa andu (written𐌰,𐌿 in Ufilas's alphabet) to represent originally long vowelsā/aː/ andū/uː/. (Long/iː/ is transcribed asei, following the spelling𐌴𐌹 used in the native alphabet). Macrons are often also used in the case ofē andō; however, they are sometimes omitted since these vowels are always long. Longā occurs only before the consonants/h/,/hʷ/ and representsProto-Germanic nasalized/ãː(h)/ < earlier/aŋ(h)/; non-nasal/aː/ did not occur in Proto-Germanic. It is possible that the Gothic vowel still preserved the nasalization, or else that the nasalization was lost but the length distinction kept, as has happened withLithuanian:ą. Non-nasal/iː/ and/uː/ occurred in Proto-Germanic, however, and so longei andū occur in all contexts. Before/h/ and/hʷ/, longei andū could stem from either non-nasal or nasal long vowels in Proto-Germanic; it is possible that the nasalization was still preserved in Gothic but not written.
/hʷ/ is written in the native alphabet with the single letter𐍈. It is transliterated by the symbol⟨ƕ⟩, which is used only in transliterating Gothic.
/kʷ/ is written in the native alphabet with the single letter𐌵. It is transliterated as⟨q⟩, with no followingu.
/ɡʷ/, however, is written with two letters in the native alphabet,𐌲𐍅, and hence is transliteratedgw. The lack of a single letter to represent this sound may result from its restricted distribution (only after/n/) and its rarity.
/θ/ is transliterated asþ.
Although thevelar nasal[ŋ] functions as anallophone of/n/ before/ɡ/ and/k/, it is written in the native alphabet as𐌲 (g), following the usage of the corresponding Greek lettergamma. The transliteration of[ŋ] asg leads to ambiguity in the context of the sequence⟨ggw⟩: for example,saggws[saŋɡʷs]'song' buttriggws[triɡɡʷs]'faithful' (compare English 'true').
Gothicphonology is reconstructed based on data such as comparison with otherGermanic languages, analysis of the transcription of Greek and non-Greek terms and names in Gothic, and analysis of spelling alternations and variations in Gothic texts.
/a/,/i/ and/u/ can be either long or short.[17] Gothic writing distinguishes between long and short vowels only for/i/ by writing⟨i⟩ for the short form and⟨ei⟩ for the long (adigraph orfalse diphthong), in an imitation of Greek usage (ει =/iː/). Single vowels are sometimes long where a historically presentnasal consonant has been dropped in front of an/h/ (a case ofcompensatory lengthening). Thus, the preterite of the verbbriggan[briŋɡan]'to bring' (Dutchbrengen, Germanbringen) becomesbrahta/braːhta/ (Englishbrought, Dutchbracht, Germanbrachte), fromProto-Germanic *branhtē. In detailedtransliteration, when the intent is morephonetic transcription, length is noted by a macron (or failing that, often acircumflex):brāhta,brâhta. This is the only context in which/aː/ appears natively whereas/uː/, like/iː/, is found often enough in other contexts:brūks'useful' (Dutch(ge)bruik, German(Ge)brauch, Icelandicbrúk'use').
/eː/ and/oː/ are longclose-mid vowels. They are written as⟨e⟩ and⟨o⟩:neƕ[neːʍ]'near' (Englishnigh, Dutchnader, Germannah);fodjan[foːdjan]'to feed'.
/ɛ/ and/ɔ/ are shortopen-mid vowels.[18] They are noted using the digraphsai andau:taihun[tɛhun]'ten' (Dutchtien, Germanzehn, Icelandictíu),dauhtar/dɔhtar/'daughter' (Dutchdochter, GermanTochter, Icelandicdóttir). In transliterating Gothic, accents are placed on the second vowel of these digraphsaí andaú to distinguish them from the original diphthongsái andáu:taíhun,daúhtar. In most cases short[ɛ] and[ɔ] are allophones of/i,u/ before/r,h,ʍ/.[19] Furthermore, the reduplication syllable of the reduplicating preterites hasai as well, which was probably pronounced as a short[ɛ].[20] Finally, short[ɛ] and[ɔ] occur in loan words from Greek and Latin (aípiskaúpus[ɛpiskɔpus] =ἐπίσκοπος'bishop',laíktjo[lɛktjoː] =lectiocode: lat promoted to code: la'lection',Paúntius[pɔntius] =Pontiuscode: lat promoted to code: la).
The Germanic diphthongs/ai/ and/au/ appear as digraphs written⟨ai⟩ and⟨au⟩ in Gothic. Researchers have disagreed over whether they were still pronounced as diphthongs/ai̯/ and/au̯/ in Ulfilas's time (4th century) or had become long open-mid vowels:/ɛː/ and/ɔː/:ains[ains]/[ɛːns]'one' (Germaneins, Icelandiceinn),augo[auɣoː]/[ɔːɣoː]'eye' (GermanAuge, Icelandicauga). It is most likely that the latter view is correct, as it is indisputable that the digraphs⟨ai⟩ and⟨au⟩ represent the sounds/ɛː/ and/ɔː/ in some circumstances (see below), and⟨aj⟩ and⟨aw⟩ were available to unambiguously represent the sounds/ai̯/ and/au̯/. The digraph⟨aw⟩ is in fact used to represent/au/ in foreign words (such asPawlus'Paul'), and alternations between⟨ai⟩/⟨aj⟩ and⟨au⟩/⟨aw⟩ are scrupulously maintained in paradigms where both variants occur (e.g.taujan'to do' vs. past tensetawida'did'). Evidence from transcriptions of Gothic names into Latin suggests that the sound change had occurred very recently when Gothic spelling was standardized: Gothic names with Germanicau are rendered withau in Latin until the 4th century ando later on (Austrogoticode: lat promoted to code: la >Ostrogoticode: lat promoted to code: la). The digraphs⟨ai⟩ and⟨au⟩ are normally written with an accent on the first vowel (ái, áu) when they correspond to Proto-Germanic/ai̯/ and/au̯/.
Long[ɛː] and[ɔː] also occur as allophones of/eː/ and/uː,oː/ respectively before a following vowel:waian[wɛːan]'to blow' (Dutchwaaien, Germanwehen),bauan[bɔːan]'to build' (Dutchbouwen, Germanbauen; Icelandicbúa'to live, reside'), also in Greek wordsTrauada'Troad' (Gk.Τρῳάς). In detailed transcription these are notatedai, au.
The existence of a vowel/y/ in Gothic is unclear. It is derived from the use of𐍅 (w) to transcribe Greekυ (y) or the diphthongοι (oi), both of which were pronounced[y] in the Greek of the time.W is otherwise used to denote the consonant/w/). It may have been pronounced[i].[21]
/iu/ is usually reconstructed as a falling diphthong ([iu̯]:diups[diu̯ps]'deep' (Dutchdiep, Germantief, Icelandicdjúpur), though this has been disputed (seealphabet and transliteration section above).
Greek diphthongs: In Ulfilas's era, all the diphthongs of Classical Greek had become simple vowels in speech (monophthongization), except forαυ (au) andευ (eu), which were probably pronounced[aβ] and[ɛβ] (they evolved into[av~af] and[ev~ef] inModern Greek.) In words borrowed from Greek,αυ andευ are transcribed in extant Gothic manuscripts asaw, aiw, probably pronounced[au̯,ɛu̯]:Pawlus[pau̯lus]'Paul' (Gk.Παῦλος),aíwaggelista[ɛwaŋɡeːlista]'evangelist' (Gk.εὐαγγελιστής, via the Latinevangelistacode: lat promoted to code: la).
All vowels (including diphthongs) can be followed by a[w], which was likely pronounced as the second element of a diphthong with roughly the sound of[u̯]. It seems likely that this is more of an instance of phonetic juxtaposition than of true diphthongs (such as, for example, the sound/aj/ in the French wordpaille'straw', which is not the diphthong/ai̯/ but rather a vowel followed by anapproximant):alew[aleːw]'olive oil' ( < Latinoleum),snáiws[snɛːws]'snow',lasiws[lasiws]'tired' (Englishlazy).
Gothic distinguished single or short consonants from long orgeminated consonants: the latter were written double, as inatta[atːa]'dad',kunnan[kunːan]'to know' (Dutchkennen, Germankennen, Icelandickunna). Gothic is rich in fricative consonants (although many of them may have beenapproximants; it is hard to separate the two) originating fromGrimm's law andVerner's law. Gothic retainedProto-Germanic *z as/z/, unlikeNorth Germanic languages andWest Germanic languages, which turned this sound into/r/ through rhotacization. Voiced fricative consonants weredevoiced at the ends of words.
The voiceless stops/p/,/t/ and/k/ are regularly noted by⟨p⟩,⟨t⟩ and⟨k⟩ respectively:paska[paska]'Easter' (from the Greekπάσχα),tuggo[tuŋɡoː]'tongue',kalbo[kalboː]'calf'.
The letter⟨q⟩ probably represented avoiceless labiovelar stop,/kʷ/, comparable to Latin⟨qu⟩:qiman[kʷiman]'to come'. In later Germanic languages, this phoneme has become either aconsonant cluster/kw/ of avoiceless velar stop + alabio-velar approximant (Englishqu) or a simple voiceless velar stop/k/ (Englishc, k).Proto-Germanic replaced/kʷu/ with/ku/ (a continuation of the Proto-Indo-EuropeanBoukólos rule) but thissurface filter was no longer active by the time Ulfilas first wrote theCodex Argenteus. The sequence/kʷu/ could occur in Gothic as the result of analogy: for example, the Gothic verbqiman/kʷiman/ (from Proto-Germanic*kwemaną/kʷemɑnɑ̃/) had the past participlequmans[kʷumans], rather than *kumans[kumans], which would be the regular outcome of the Proto-Germanic form *kumanaz/kumɑnɑz/.
The voiced stops[b],[d] and[ɡ] are noted by the letters⟨b⟩,⟨d⟩ and⟨g⟩. They occurred after a nasal (as in other Germanic languages) and apparently also after other consonants:[22]arbi[arbi]'inheritance',huzd[huzd]'treasure'. (This is inferred from their behavior at the end of a word, where they do not change into voiceless fricatives, unlike when they occur after a vowel.) It is generally assumed thatb d g were also pronounced as stops in word-initial position[23] or when geminate.[22] However,Bennett (1980:3–4) gives word-initialb d as stops, but word-initialg as a voiced fricative, and assumes geminategg(w) had merged with the identically spelled[ŋɡ(ʷ)]. Geminatebb, dd, gg did not occur in native Gothic words outside of the sequencesggw andddj, but they could be found in borrowed words (such asÞaddaiu'Thaddaeus' orsabbato'sabbath'[24]).
There was probably also avoiced labiovelar stop,[ɡʷ], which was written with the digraph⟨gw⟩. It occurred after a nasal, e.g.saggws[saŋɡʷs]'song', or long as a regular outcome of Germanic *ww:triggws[triɡʷːs]'faithful' (Englishtrue, Germantreu, Icelandictryggur). The existence of a long[ɡʷː] separate from[ŋɡʷ], however, is not universally accepted.[25]
The letters⟨ddj⟩ represented the regular outcome of Germanic *jj. Its pronunciation has been variously proposed to be[ɟj],[26][dːj] or[dj].[25]
/s/ and/z/ are usually written⟨s⟩ and⟨z⟩. The latter corresponds to Germanic *z (which has becomer or silent in the other Germanic languages); at the end of a word, it is regularly devoiced tos. E.g.saíhs[sɛhs]'six',máiza[mɛːza]'greater' (Englishmore, Dutchmeer, Germanmehr, Icelandicmeira) versusmáis[mɛːs]'more, rather'.
/ɸ/ and/θ/, written⟨f⟩ and⟨þ⟩, are voiceless bilabial and voiceless dental fricatives respectively. It is likely that the relatively unstable sound/ɸ/ became/f/. The cluster/ɸl/ became/θl/ in some words but not others:þlauhs'flight' from Germanic *flugiz;þliuhan'flee' from Germanic *fleuhaną (but seeflōdus'river',flahta'braid'). This sound change is unique among Germanic languages.[citation needed]
[β],[ð] and[ɣ] areallophones of/b/,/d/ and/ɡ/ respectively, and are not distinguished from them in writing. The voiced fricative allophones were used when/b,d,ɡ/ came between vowels, as inhaban[haβan]'to have',þiuda[θiu̯ða]'people',áugo[ɔːɣoː]'eye'. When preceded by a vowel and followed by a voiceless consonant or by the end of a word,/b,d/ were devoiced to[ɸ,θ] and spelled as⟨f⟩,⟨þ⟩: e.g.hláifs[hlɛːɸs]'loaf' but genitivehláibis[hlɛːβis]'of a loaf';gif[ɡiɸ]'give (imperative)' but infinitivegiban[ɡiβan]'to give';miþ[miθ]'with' (Old Englishmid,Old Norsemeð). The velar consonant/ɡ/ was probably also phonetically devoiced in the same position, becoming the voiceless velar fricative[x], but this is less certain; it remained spelled asg and apparently did not merge with any other phoneme. It is possible that[β] developed phonetically to labiodental[v].
/h/ (from Proto-Germanic *x) is written as⟨h⟩:haban'to have'. It could occur in the coda of syllables (e.g.jah/jah/'and' (Dutch, German, Scandinavianja'yes') and unlike/ɸ/ and/θ/, it did not merge at the end of a word or before a voiceless consonant with its etymologically paired voiced consonant:/ɡ/ remained written as⟨g⟩, e.g.dags/dags/'day' (GermanTag). There are conflicting interpretations of what this data means in terms of phonetics. Some linguists interpret it as a sign that[ɣ] failed to be devoiced in this context, but given that the other voiced fricatives were subject to devoicing in this position,Howell (1991) argues it is more likely that/dags/ was pronounced with devoicing as[daxs] and coda/h/ was pronounced as something other than a voiceless velar fricative. Two phonetic values that have been proposed for syllable-final/h/ are uvular[χ] and glottal[h].[27]
In some borrowed Greek words there is a special letter⟨x⟩, which represents the Greek letterχ (ch):Xristus[xristus]'Christ' (Gk.Χριστός).
⟨ƕ⟩ (also transcribedhw) is the labiovelar equivalent of/h/, derived from Proto-Indo-European *kʷ. It was probably pronounced[ʍ] (a voiceless[w]), aswh is pronounced in certain dialects of English and in Scots:ƕan/ʍan/'when',ƕar/ʍar/'where',ƕeits[ʍiːts]'white'.
Gothic has three nasal consonants,[m,n,ŋ]. The first two are phonemes,/m/ and/n/; the third,[ŋ], is an allophone found only incomplementary distribution with the other two.
The bilabial nasal/m/, transcribed⟨m⟩, can be found in any position in a syllable: e.g.guma'man',bagms'tree'.[28]
The coronal nasal/n/, transcribed⟨n⟩, can be found in any position in a syllable. Itassimilates to theplace of articulation of an immediately following stop consonant: before abilabial consonant, it becomes[m] and before avelar stop, it becomes[ŋ]. Thus, clusters like[nb] or[nk] are not possible.
The velar nasal[ŋ], transcribed⟨g⟩, is not a phoneme and cannot appear freely in Gothic. It occurs only before a velar stop as the result of nasal place assimilation, and so is incomplementary distribution with/n/ and/m/. Following Greek conventions, it is normally written asg (sometimesn):þagkjan[θaŋkjan]'to think',sigqan[siŋkʷan]'to sink' ~þankeiþ[θaŋkiːθ]'thinks'. The clusterggw may have denoted two different spoken sounds[ŋɡʷ] and[ɡʷː] (see above).
/w/ is transliterated as⟨w⟩ before a vowel:weis[wiːs]'we',twái[twɛː]'two' (Germanzwei).
/j/ is written as⟨j⟩:jer[jeːr]'year',sakjo[sakjoː]'strife'.
/l/ and/r/ occur as in other European languages:laggs (possibly[laŋɡs],[laŋks] or[laŋɡz])'long',mel[meːl]'hour' (Englishmeal, Dutchmaal, GermanMahl, Icelandicmál). The exact pronunciation of/r/ is unknown, but it is usually assumed to be atrill[r] or aflap[ɾ]):raíhts/rɛhts/'right',afar[afar]'after'.
/l/,/m/,/n/ and/r/ may occur either between two other consonants of lower sonority or word-finally after a consonant of lower sonority. It is probable that the sounds are pronounced partly or completely assyllabic consonants in such circumstances (as in English "bottle" or "bottom"):tagl[taɣl̩] or[taɣl]'hair' (Englishtail, Icelandictagl),máiþms[mɛːθm̩s] or[mɛːθms]'gift',táikns[tɛːkn̩s] or[tɛːkns]'sign' (Englishtoken, Dutchteken, GermanZeichen, Icelandictákn) andtagr[taɣr̩] or[taɣr]'tear (as in crying)'.
Accentuation in Gothic can be reconstructed through phonetic comparison,Grimm's law, andVerner's law. Gothic used astress accent rather than thepitch accent ofProto-Indo-European. This is indicated by the shortening of long vowels[eː] and[oː] to [a] and the loss of short vowels[a] and[i] in unstressed final syllables.
Just as in other Germanic languages, the free movingProto-Indo-European accent was replaced with one fixed on the first syllable of simple words. Accents do not shift when words are inflected. In most compound words, the location of the stress depends on the type of compound:
In compounds in which the second word is anoun, the accent is on the first syllable of the first word of the compound.
In compounds in which the second word is averb, the accent falls on the first syllable of the verbal component. Elements prefixed to verbs are otherwise unstressed except in the context of separable words (words that can be broken in two parts and separated in regular usage such asseparable verbs in German and Dutch). In those cases, the prefix is stressed.[citation needed]
For example, with comparable words from modern Germanic languages:
Gothic preserves many archaic Indo-European features that are not always present in modern Germanic languages, in particular the rich Indo-Europeandeclension system. Gothic hadnominative,accusative,genitive anddative cases, as well as vestiges of avocative case that was sometimes identical to the nominative and sometimes to the accusative. The threegenders of Indo-European were all present. Nouns and adjectives were inflected according to one of twogrammatical numbers: the singular and the plural.
Nouns can be divided into numerous declensions according to the form of the stem:a,ō,i,u,an,ōn,ein,r, etc. Adjectives have two variants,indefinite anddefinite (sometimesindeterminate anddeterminate), with definite adjectives normally used in combination with the definitedeterminers (such as thedefinite articlesa/þata/sō) while indefinite adjectives are used in other circumstances.,[29][30] Indefinite adjectives generally use a combination ofa-stem andō-stem endings, and definite adjectives use a combination ofan-stem andōn-stem endings. The concept of "strong" and "weak" declensions that is prevalent in the grammar of many otherGermanic languages is less significant in Gothic because of its conservative nature: the so-called "weak" declensions (those ending inn) are, in fact, no weaker in Gothic (in terms of having fewer endings) than the "strong" declensions (those ending in a vowel), and the "strong" declensions do not form a coherent class that can be clearly distinguished from the "weak" declensions.
Although descriptive adjectives in Gothic (as well as superlatives ending in-ist and-ost) and thepast participle may take both definite and indefinite forms, some adjectival words are restricted to one variant. Some pronouns take only definite forms: for example,sama (English "same"), adjectives likeunƕeila ("constantly", from the rootƕeila, "time"; compare to the English "while"), comparative adjective andpresent participles. Others, such asáins ("some"), take only the indefinite forms.
The table below displays the declension of the Gothic adjectiveblind (English: "blind"), compared with thean-stem nounguma "man, human" and thea-stem noundags "day":
This table is, of course, not exhaustive. (There are secondary inflexions of various sorts not described here.) An exhaustive table of only thetypes of endings that Gothic took is presented below.
vowel declensions:
roots ending in-a,-ja,-wa (masculine and neuter): equivalent to the Greek and Latin second declension in‑us /‑ī and ‑ος / ‑ου;
roots ending in-ō,-jō and-wō (feminine): equivalent to the Greek and Latin first declension in‑a /‑ae and ‑α / ‑ας (‑η / ‑ης);
Gothic inherited the full set of Indo-European pronouns:personal pronouns (includingreflexive pronouns for each of the threegrammatical persons),possessive pronouns, both simple and compounddemonstratives,relative pronouns,interrogatives andindefinite pronouns. Each follows a particular pattern of inflection (partially mirroring the noun declension), much like other Indo-European languages. One particularly noteworthy characteristic is the preservation of thedual number, referring to two people or things; the plural was used only for quantities greater than two. Thus, "the two of us" and "we" for numbers greater than two were expressed aswit andweis respectively. While Proto-Indo-European used the dual for all grammatical categories that took a number (as did Classical Greek andSanskrit), most Old Germanic languages are unusual in that they preserved it only for pronouns. Gothic preserves an older system with dual marking on both pronouns and verbs (but not nouns or adjectives).
The simple demonstrative pronounsa (neuter:þata, feminine:so, from the Indo-European root*so,*seh2,*tod; cognate to the Greek article ὁ, ἡ, τό and the Latinistud) can be used as an article, allowing constructions of the typedefinite article + weak adjective + noun.
The interrogative pronouns begin withƕ-, which derives from the Proto-Indo-European consonant*kʷ that was present at the beginning of all interrogatives in proto-Indo-European, cognate with thewh- at the beginning of many English interrogative, which, as in Gothic, are pronounced with[ʍ] in some dialects. The same etymology is present in the interrogatives of many other Indo-European languages:w-[v] in German,hv- inDanish, the Latinqu- (which persists in modernRomance languages), the Greek τ- or π-, theSlavic andIndick- as well as many others.
The bulk of Gothic verbs follow the type of Indo-European conjugation called 'thematic' because they insert a vowel derived from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European phonemes*e or*o between roots and inflexional suffixes. The pattern is also present in Greek and Latin:
The other conjugation, called 'athematic', in which suffixes are added directly to roots, exists only in unproductive vestigial forms in Gothic, just like in Greek and Latin. The most important such instance isthe verb "to be", which is athematic in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, and many other Indo-European languages.
Gothic verbs are, like nouns and adjectives, divided into strong verbs and weak verbs. Weak verbs are characterised bypreterites formed by appending the suffixes-da or-ta, parallel to past participles formed with-þ /-t. Strong verbs form preterites byablaut (the alternating of vowels in their root forms) or byreduplication (prefixing the root with the first consonant in the root plusaí) but without adding a suffix in either case. This parallels the Greek and Sanskritperfects. The dichotomy is still present in modern Germanic languages:
weak verbs ("to have"):
Gothic:haban, preterite:habáida, past participle:habáiþs;
English:(to) have, preterite:had, past participle:had;
German:haben, preterite:hatte, past participle:gehabt;
Icelandic:hafa, preterite:hafði, past participle:haft;
Dutch:hebben, preterite:had, past participle:gehad;
Swedish:ha(va), preterite:hade, supine:haft;
strong verbs ("to give"):
Gothic: infinitive:giban, preterite:gaf;
English: infinitive:(to) give, preterite:gave;
German: infinitive:geben, preterite:gab;
Icelandic: infinitive:gefa, preterite:gaf;
Dutch: infinitive:geven, preterite:gaf;
Swedish: infinitive:giva (ge), preterite:gav.
Verbal conjugation in Gothic have twogrammatical voices: the active and the medial; three numbers: singular, dual (except in the third person) and plural; two tenses: present and preterite (derived from a former perfect); threegrammatical moods:indicative,subjunctive (from an oldoptative form) andimperative as well as three kinds of nominal forms: a presentinfinitive, a presentparticiple, and a pastpassive. Not all tenses and persons are represented in all moods and voices, as some conjugations useauxiliary forms.
Finally, there are forms called 'preterite-present': the old Indo-European perfect was reinterpreted as present tense. The Gothic wordwáit, from the Proto-Indo-European*woid-h2e ("to see" in the perfect), corresponds exactly to its Sanskrit cognatevéda and in Greek to ϝοἶδα. Both etymologically should mean "I have seen" (in the perfect sense) but mean "I know" (in the preterite-present meaning). Latin follows the same rule withnōuī ("I have learned" and "I know"). The preterite-present verbs includeáigan ("to possess") andkunnan ("to know") among others.
The word order of Gothic is fairly free as is typical of other inflected languages. The natural word order of Gothic is assumed to have been like that of the other old Germanic languages; however, nearly all extant Gothic texts are translations of Greek originals and have been heavily influenced by Greek syntax.
Sometimes what can be expressed in one word in the original Greek will require a verb and a complement in the Gothic translation; for example, διωχθήσονται (diōchthēsontai, "they will be persecuted") is rendered:
Likewise Gothic translations of Greek noun phrases may feature a verb and a complement. In both cases, the verb follows the complement, giving weight to the theory that basic word order in Gothic is object–verb. This aligns with what is known of other early Germanic languages.[31]
However, this pattern is reversed in imperatives and negations:[32]
The prepositional phrase without the clitic -u appears asaf þus silbin: the clitic causes the reversion of originally voiced fricatives, unvoiced at the end of a word, to their voiced form; another such example iswileid-u "do you (pl.) want" fromwileiþ "you (pl.) want". If the first word has apreverb attached, the clitic actually splits the preverb from the verb:ga-u-láubjats "do you both believe...?" fromgaláubjats "you both believe".
Another such clitic is-uh "and", appearing as-h after a vowel:ga-h-mēlida "and he wrote" fromgamēlida "he wrote",urreis nim-uh "arise and take!" from the imperative formnim "take". Afteriþ or any indefinite besidessums "some" andanþar "another", -uh cannot be placed; in the latter category, this is only because indefinite determiner phrases cannot move to the front of a clause. Unlike, for example, Latin -que, -uh can only join two or more main clauses. In all other cases, the wordjah "and" is used, which can also join main clauses.
For the most part, Gothic is known to be significantly closer to Proto-Germanic than any other Germanic language[citation needed] except for that of the (scantily attested)Ancient Nordic runic inscriptions, which has made it invaluable in the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic[citation needed]. In fact, Gothic tends to serve as the primary foundation for reconstructing Proto-Germanic[citation needed]. The reconstructed Proto-Germanic conflicts with Gothic only when there is clearly identifiable evidence from other branches that the Gothic form is a secondary development.[citation needed]
The morphological passive in North Germanic languages (Swedishgör "does",görs "is being done") originates from theOld Norsemiddle voice, which is an innovation not inherited from Indo-European.
Unlike other Germanic languages, which retained dual numbering only in some pronoun forms, Gothic has dual forms both in pronouns and in verbs. Dual verb forms exist only in the first and second person and only in the active voice; in all other cases, the corresponding plural forms are used. In pronouns, Gothic has first and second person dual pronouns: Gothic and Old Englishwit, Old Norsevit "we two" (thought to have been in fact derived from*wi-du literally "we two").
Gothic possesses a number of verbs which form their preterite by reduplication, another archaic feature inherited from Indo-European. While traces of this category survived elsewhere in Germanic, the phenomenon is largely obscured in these other languages by later sound changes and analogy. In the following examples the infinitive is compared to the third person singular preterite indicative:
The standard theory of the origin of the Germanic languages divides the languages into three groups:East Germanic (Gothic and a few other very scantily-attested languages),North Germanic (Old Norse and its derivatives, such asSwedish,Danish,Norwegian,Icelandic, andFaroese) andWest Germanic (all others, includingOld English,Old High German,Old Saxon,Old Dutch,Old Frisian and the numerous modern languages derived from these, including English, German, andDutch). Sometimes, a further grouping, that of theNorthwest Germanic languages, is posited as containing the North Germanic and West Germanic languages, reflecting the hypothesis that Gothic was the first attested language to branch off.
A minority opinion (the so-calledGotho-Nordic hypothesis) instead groups North Germanic andEast Germanic together. It is based partly on historical claims: for example,Jordanes, writing in the 6th century, ascribes to the Goths a Scandinavian origin. There are a few linguistically significant areas in which Gothic and Old Norse agree against the West Germanic languages.
Perhaps the most obvious is the evolution of theProto-Germanic *-jj- and *-ww- into Gothicddj (from Pre-Gothicggj?) andggw, and Old Norseggj andggv ("Holtzmann's Law"), in contrast to West Germanic where they remained as semivowels. Compare Modern Englishtrue, Germantreu, with Gothictriggws, Old Norsetryggr.
However, it has been suggested that these are, in fact, two separate and unrelated changes.[34] A number of other posited similarities exist (for example, the existence of numerous inchoative verbs ending in -na, such as Gothicga-waknan, Old Norsevakna; and the absence of gemination beforej, or (in the case of old Norse) onlyg geminated beforej, e.g. Proto-Germanic *kunją > Gothickuni (kin), Old Norsekyn, but Old Englishcynn, Old High Germankunni). However, for the most part these representshared retentions, which are not valid means of grouping languages. That is, if a parent language splits into three daughters A, B and C, and C innovates in a particular area but A and B do not change, A and B will appear to agree against C. That shared retention in A and B is not necessarily indicative of any special relationship between the two.
Similar claims of similarities betweenOld Gutnish (Gutniska) andOld Icelandic are also based on shared retentions rather than shared innovations.
Another commonly-given example involves Gothic and Old Norse verbs with the ending-t in the 2nd person singular preterite indicative, and the West Germanic languages have-i. The ending-t can regularly descend from the Proto-Indo-European perfect ending*-th₂e, while the origin of the West Germanic ending-i (which, unlike the-t-ending, unexpectedly combines with the zero-grade of the root as in the plural) is unclear, suggesting that it is an innovation of some kind, possibly an import from the optative. Another possibility is that this is an example of independent choices made from a doublet existing in the proto-language. That is, Proto-Germanic may have allowed either-t or-i to be used as the ending, either infree variation or perhaps depending on dialects within Proto-Germanic or the particular verb in question. Each of the three daughters independently standardized on one of the two endings and, by chance, Gothic and Old Norse ended up with the same ending.
Otherisoglosses have led scholars to propose an early split between East andNorthwest Germanic. Furthermore, features shared by any two branches of Germanic do not necessarily require the postulation of aproto-language excluding the third, as the earlyGermanic languages were all part of adialect continuum in the early stages of their development, andcontact between the three branches of Germanic was extensive.
Polish linguistWitold Mańczak argued that Gothic is closer to German (specificallyUpper German) than to Scandinavian and suggested that their ancestral homeland was located in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, close to present-day Austria, rather than in Scandinavia.Frederik Kortlandt has agreed with Mańczak's hypothesis, stating: "I think that his argument is correct and that it is time to abandon Iordanes' classic view that the Goths came from Scandinavia."[35]
The reconstructedProto-Slavic language features several apparentborrowed words from East Germanic (presumably Gothic), such as*xlěbъ, "bread", vs. Gothic𐌷𐌻𐌰𐌹𐍆𐍃 (hlaifs).[36]
TheRomance languages also preserve several loanwords from Gothic, such asPortugueseagasalho ("warm clothing"), from Gothic*𐌲𐌰𐍃𐌰𐌻𐌾𐌰 (*gasalja, "companion, comrade");ganso ("goose"), from Gothic*𐌲𐌰𐌽𐍃 (*gans, "goose");luva ("glove"), from Gothic𐌻𐍉𐍆𐌰 (lōfa, "palm of the hand"); andtrégua ("truce"), from Gothic𐍄𐍂𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍅𐌰 (triggwa, "treaty; covenant"). Other examples include the Frenchbroder ("to embroider"), from Gothic*𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌶𐌳𐍉𐌽 (*bruzdon, "to embroider");gaffe ("gaffe"), from Gothic𐌲𐌰𐍆𐌰𐌷 (gafāh, "catch; something which is caught"); and the Italianbega ("quarrel, dispute"), from Gothic*𐌱𐌴𐌲𐌰 (*bēga, "quarrel").[citation needed]
Tolkien's use of Gothic is also known from a letter from 1965 to Zillah Sherring. When Sherring bought a copy ofThucydides'History of the Peloponnesian War in Salisbury, she found strange inscriptions in it; after she found his name in it, she wrote him a letter and asked him if the inscriptions were his, including the longest one on the back, which was in Gothic. In his reply to her he corrected some of the mistakes in the text; he wrote for example thathundai should behunda andþizo boko ("of those books"), which he suggested should beþizos bokos ("of this book"). A semantic inaccuracy of the text which he mentioned himself is the use oflisan for read, while this wasussiggwan. Tolkien also made acalque of his own name in Gothic in the letter, which according to him should beRuginwaldus Dwalakoneis.[38]
Gothic is also known to have served as the primary inspiration for Tolkien'sinvented language, Taliska[39] which, inhis legendarium, was the language spoken by the race of Men during theFirst Age before being displaced by another of his invented languages,Adûnaic. As of 2022[update], Tolkien's Taliska grammar has not been published.
On 10 February 1841, theBayerische Akademie für Wissenschaften published a reconstruction in Gothic of the Creed ofUlfilas.[40]
The Thorvaldsen museum also has an alliterative poem, "Thunravalds Sunau", from 1841 byMassmann, the first publisher of the Skeireins, written in the Gothic language. It was read at a great feast dedicated to Thorvaldsen in the Gesellschaft der Zwanglosen inMunich on July 15, 1841. This event is mentioned byLudwig von Schorn in the magazineKunstblatt from the 19th of July, 1841.[41] Massmann also translated the academiccommercium songGaudeamus into Gothic in 1837.[42]
InFleurs du Mal, an online magazine for art and literature, the poemOvervloed of Dutch poet Bert Bevers appeared in a Gothic translation.[44][full citation needed]
atta unsar þu in himinam weihnai namo þein qimai þiudinassus þeins wairþai wilja þeins swe in himina jah ana airþai hlaif unsarana þana sinteinan gif uns himma daga jah aflet uns þatei skulans sijaima swaswe jah weis afletam þaim skulam unsaraim jah ni briggais uns in fraistubnjai ak lausei uns af þamma ubilin unte þeina ist þiudangardi jah mahts jah wulþus in aiwins
/ˈatːa ˈunsar θuː in ˈhiminam ˈwiːhnɛː ˈnamoː θiːn ˈkʷimɛː ˈθiu̯ðinasːus θiːns ˈwɛrθɛː ˈwilja θiːns sweː in ˈhimina jah ana ˈɛrθɛː hlɛːɸ ˈunsarana ˈθana ˈsinˌtiːnan ɡiɸ uns ˈhimːa ˈdaɣa jah aɸˈleːt uns ˈθatiː ˈskulans ˈsijɛːma ˈswasweː jah ˈwiːs aɸˈleːtam θɛːm ˈskulam ˈunsarɛːm jah ni ˈbriŋɡɛːs uns in ˈɸrɛːstuβnijɛː ak ˈlɔːsiː uns aɸ ˈθamːa ˈuβilin ˈunteː ˈθiːna ist ˈθiu̯ðanˌɡardi jah mahts jah ˈwulθus in ˈɛːwins/
Father our, thou in heaven, {be holy} name thy. Come kingdom thy, happen will thy, as in heaven also on earth. Loaf our, the daily, give us this day, and forgive us, that debtors be, {just as} also we forgive those debtors our. And not bring us in temptation, but loose us from the evil. For thine is kingdom and might and glory in eternity.
^Harting-Correa, Alice L. (1996).Walahfrid Strabo's libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum. A translation and liturgical commentary. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill. pp. 72–73.ISBN90-04-09669-8. Discussion between W. Haubrichs and S. Barnish inGreen, D. H. (2007). "Linguistic and Literary Traces of the Ostrogoths". In Barnish, S. J.; Marazzi, F. (eds.).The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology. Vol. 7. Ausenda G. (series ed.). Oxford: Boydell Press. p. 409 and n1.ISBN978-1-84383-074-0.
Bennett, William Holmes (1980).An Introduction to the Gothic Language. Introduction to older languages. New York: Modern Language Association of America.ISBN0-87352-295-8.
Cercignani, Fausto (1979a). "The Reduplicating Syllable and Internal Open Juncture in Gothic".Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung.93 (1):126–132.JSTOR40848594.
——— (1979b). "The Development of the Gothic Short/Lax Subsystem".Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung.93 (2):272–278.JSTOR40848605.
——— (1984). "The Enfants Terribles of Gothic "Breaking": hiri, aiþþau, etc".The Journal of Indo-European Studies.12 (3–4):315–344.
——— (1986). "The Development of the Gothic Vocalic System". In Brogyanyi, Bela; Krömmelbein, Thomas (eds.).Germanic Dialects: Linguistic and Philological Investigations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. pp. 121–151.doi:10.1075/cilt.38.09cer.ISBN90-272-3526-0.
Collinge, N.E. (1985). "Holtzmann's Law".The Laws of Indo-European. John Benjamins.ISBN978-90-272-2102-5.
Dietrich, Claude (1998). "Remarks about Relations Between Visigoths and Hispano-Romans in the Seventh Century". In Pohl, Walter; Reimitz, Helmut (eds.).Strategies of Distinction: Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800. Transformation of the Roman World. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill. pp. 117–130.doi:10.1163/9789004609518_008.ISBN90-04-10846-7.
Eythórsson, Thórhallur (2001). "Functional Categories, Cliticization, and Verb Movement in the Early Germanic Languages". In Thráinsson, Höskuldur; Epstein, Samuel David & Peter, Stever (eds.).Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Vol. II. Kluwer Academic. pp. 109–139.ISBN978-1-402-00294-6.
——— (2017). "Zum gotischen Fragment aus Bologna II: Berichtigungen und neue Lesungen".Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und Literatur (in German).146 (3):284–294.doi:10.3813/zfda-2017-0012.JSTOR26579916.
Holzer, Georg (1990). "Germanische Lehnwörter im Urslavischen: Methodologisches zu ihrer Identifizierung".Croatica, Slavica, Indoeuropaea [Germanic word-borrowings in proto-slavic: towards a methodology of their identification]. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch (in German). Vol. 8 (Ergänzungsband). Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 59–67.ISBN978-3-7001-1774-2. Retrieved7 January 2014.
——— (2018b). "This is not the same: the ambiguity of a Gothic adjective".Folia Linguistica Historica.39 (2):475–494.doi:10.1515/flih-2018-0017.S2CID150114192.
——— (2015). "Gothic Contact with Latin: Gotica Parisina and Wulfila's Alphabet". In Askedal, John Ole; Nielsen, Hans Frede (eds.).Early Germanic Languages in Contact. NOWELE Supplement Series. Vol. 27. pp. 91–107.doi:10.1075/nss.27.05sna.ISBN978-90-272-4073-6.
.jpg)
.png)
