Re: CHAT: Visigoths (was: YADPT (D=Dutch))

On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 07:55 PM, Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>:
[snip]

>> _gothus_ is certainly attested in the Classical period, though not till
>> a
>> late period.
>> Possibly they were also called _gotho:nes_ or _goto:nes by Tacitus, and
>> Gu:tones by Pliny; though some argue, apparently, that the latter two
>> writers were
>> referring to the_Getae_ in the area of Prussia or modern Lithuania.
>
> Would those be the same as the Danubian _Getae_, whom Jordanes confused
> with
> the Goths?
Probably, I guess.  The Germanic groups obviously moved around and the
Roman &
Greek authors also were getting their info at 2nd, 3rd ... nth hand - so
plenty
of scope for confusion and misinformation   :)

The identification of Getae and Goths persisted for a long time (and
possibly
is still held by some); in Leyden in 1597, a Bonaventura Vulcanius
published:
"De literis et lingua Getarum sive Gothorum."

>> What's going on is simply a difference in Latinizing a non-Latin
>> Ethnicon.
>> There was no "Academia Latina" to decide such things  :)
>
> What's the Gothic form of "goth" anyway?
According to Chamber's English Dictionary:
sing. Guta ~ pl. Gutans
also
sing. Guts ~ pl. Guto:s
also
Gutþiuda [4th letter is thorn] = the Gothic people

[snip]]
>>
>> Well, yes.  uisi- doesn't really fit well with Germanic words for 'west'
>> ,
>> 'western' etc.
>> The Ostrogoths (Latinized variously as _ostrogothi_, _autrogothi_
>
> Let's not forget _ostrogothae_ ...
Indeed not, and let's also correct my typo to _austrogothi_  :)

>
>> ), and which I've seen anglicized as Ostergoths (surely
>> 'Eastergoths'
>> would be better) are almost certainly the eastern Goths.
>
> I can only repeat that sources I normally consider reliable in these
> matters
> say they most probably are not.
I've long doubted the traditional etymology of _uisigothae_ so, in view of
the
info you give, I certainly modify my last sentence above to:
"..... may possibly be 'the eastern Goths'."

> BTW, did _austr-_ go ninety digrees anticlockwise and at some point?
> Austria
> and Austrasia must surely refer to these being _eastern_ places, not
> southern
> ones. Or are they just cases of superficial latinization?
Superficial latinization, I think.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================

Reply