Talk:𐌺𐌰𐌿𐍀𐌰𐍄𐌾𐌰𐌽

Past Participle

@Mnemosientje It seems that the Past Participle of this verb possess the -i- while lacking it in the past Indicative and subjunctive; compare 𐌺𐌰𐌿𐍀𐌰𐍃𐍄𐌴𐌳𐌿𐌽 (kaupastēdun) and 𐌺𐌰𐌿𐍀𐌰𐍃𐍄𐌴𐌳𐌹 (kaupastēdi) with 𐌺𐌰𐌿𐍀𐌰𐍄𐌹𐌳𐌰𐌹 (kaupatidai). Other class 1 weak irregular verbs don't display such alteration. Do have any idea why? 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, honestly. My best guess would be that the irregularity of these -atjan verbs threw scribes off, either in Wulfila's time already or in the time of the Ostrogothic scribes to whom we owe our manuscripts, causing them to reform the participle as if it were a regular weak verb in this one case. But that is just a guess, and it does not explain why they didn't do the same with other past tense forms. I am also not sure whether this irregularity existed in other -atjan verbs as well (presumably it did, if this is indeed not just a scribal mistake), in which case the conjugation table at lauhatjan and the PGmc conjugation tables for the -atjanan verbs also need to be adjusted. (It really is a pity we don't have other attested past participles for -atjan verbs...) As far as I can google however there has not been an explanation. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: I went ahead to try to see if I could find any more -atjan verbs. I only came across 𐍃𐍅𐍉𐌲𐌰𐍄𐌾𐌰𐌽 (swōgatjan), but that one doesn't have the past participle attested. I also visisted Bosworth-Toller to see the past participle of Old English blīccettan (which comes from *blikkatjaną), and they gave it as blīcetted; so I guess it's possible that the -atjaną carried the -i- in the past participle; if Old English -ettan verbs hadn't merged with class 1 verbs.

On an unrelated note; I've seen Gothic verbs prefixed with various preposition without really changing the meaning that much. For example, there is 𐌼𐌹𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌳𐌾𐌰𐌽 (miþarbaidjan) that was created from 𐌰𐍂𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌳𐌾𐌰𐌽 (arbaidjan) but the meaning hasn’t really changed that much; or am I missing something? So couldn’t “,niþais þos þozei miþarbaididedun mis in aiwaggeljon miþ Klaimaintau...” have been “,niþais þos þozei arbaididedun miþ mis in aiwaggeljon miþ Klaimaintau...”? I also seen Ancient Greek, Latin and Old High German act in a similar way. My question is in regards to what rules are prepositions prefixed to verbs in Gothic; and do other Indo-European languages function under the same rules? 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Often the meaning only shifts a little, yes, following the meaning of the prefix or preposition that is added. In the case of miþarbaididedun, the miþ- part can be explained easily when considering the Ancient Greek text on which the Gothic is based, which has a corresponding prefix συν- in συνήθλησάν in the same place. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Also I wouldn't be comfortable using OE as an indication, given how much time separates it from PGmc there's a very good chance morphological levelling took away any peculiarities of these -atjan verbs without us knowing about it. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: I just recently fixed the conjugation table of this verb so now the past participle is 𐌺𐌰𐌿𐍀𐌰𐍄𐌹𐌸𐍃 (kaupatiþs). I've also changed conjugation table at 𐌻𐌰𐌿𐌷𐌰𐍄𐌾𐌰𐌽 (lauhatjan) although I don't know if should add the * to the past participle. What is your opinion on the matter? 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Holodwig21 I have added a disclaimer to the three -atjan entries we have. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)