Method in Metaphysics 1st Edition Andrew Beards

Visit https://ebookultra.com to download the full version and
explore more ebooks or textbooks
Method in Metaphysics 1st Edition Andrew Beards
_____ Click the link below to download _____
https://ebookultra.com/download/method-in-metaphysics-1st-
edition-andrew-beards/
Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Insight and Analysis Essays in Applying Lonerganâ 1st
Edition Andrew Beards
https://ebookultra.com/download/insight-and-analysis-essays-in-
applying-lonergana-1st-edition-andrew-beards/
Peirce s scientific metaphysics the philosophy of chance
law and evolution 1st Edition Andrew Reynolds
https://ebookultra.com/download/peirce-s-scientific-metaphysics-the-
philosophy-of-chance-law-and-evolution-1st-edition-andrew-reynolds/
Drawn to See Drawing as an Ethnographic Method 1st Edition
Andrew Causey
https://ebookultra.com/download/drawn-to-see-drawing-as-an-
ethnographic-method-1st-edition-andrew-causey/
Avicenna s Metaphysics in Context 1st Edition Robert
Wisnovsky
https://ebookultra.com/download/avicenna-s-metaphysics-in-context-1st-
edition-robert-wisnovsky/

Kant s Solution for Verification in Metaphysics 1st
Edition Dryer
https://ebookultra.com/download/kant-s-solution-for-verification-in-
metaphysics-1st-edition-dryer/
Music art and metaphysics essays in philosophical
aesthetics Levinson
https://ebookultra.com/download/music-art-and-metaphysics-essays-in-
philosophical-aesthetics-levinson/
Music Art and Metaphysics Essays in Philosophical
Aesthetics Jerrold Levinson
https://ebookultra.com/download/music-art-and-metaphysics-essays-in-
philosophical-aesthetics-jerrold-levinson/
The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science 1° Edition
Harris Errol E
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-foundations-of-metaphysics-in-
science-1-edition-harris-errol-e/
Nietzsche on Epistemology and Metaphysics The World in
View 1st Edition Tsarina Doyle
https://ebookultra.com/download/nietzsche-on-epistemology-and-
metaphysics-the-world-in-view-1st-edition-tsarina-doyle/

Digital Instant Download
Author(s): AndrewBeards
ISBN(s): 9781442688605, 1442688602
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 1.97 MB
Year: 2008
Language: english

Method in Metaphysics:
Lonergan and the Future of Analytical
Philosophy
Recto Running Head i

This page intentionally left blank

ANDREW BEARDS
Method
in Metaphysics
Lonergan and the Future of
Analytical Philosophy
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS
Toronto London Buffalo
Recto Running Head iii

Toronto Buffalo London
www.utppublishing.com
Printed in Canada
isbn 978-0-8020-9752-1
Printed on acid-free paper
Lonergan Studies
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data
Method in metaphysics : Lonergan and the future of analytical philosophy /
Andrew Beards.
(Lonergan studies)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
isbn 978-0-8020-9752-1
1. Lonergan, Bernard J.F. (Bernard Joseph Francis), 1904–1984. 2. Analysis
(Philosophy). 3. Metaphysics. I. Title. II. Series.
b995.l654b42 2007 191 c2007-903462-4
Publication of this volume has been made possible by grants from the Jesuits of
Upper Canada; Lonergan Center, Seton Hall University, N.J., U.S.A.; Maryvale
Institute, Birmingham, U.K.; and the financial help of the Academic Vice-Presi-
dency and Cosmopolis: Lonergan Research Group, of the Pontificia Universidad
Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing
program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council.
University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its
publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the
Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).
iv Verso Running Head
© University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2008
Beards, Andrew, 1957–

To my wife, Christina,
and to the memory of
my father and mother
Recto Running Head v

Contents
Acknowledgments / xi
Introduction / 3
1 The Revival of Metaphysics / 10
Lonergan and Analytical Philosophy / 13
The Concern with Method / 15
The Roots of Metaphysics in Epistemology / 17
2 From Epistemology to Metaphysics / 20
Understanding Method / 20
Critical Realism I: Cognitional Structure / 23
Characteristics of the Cognitional Process / 34
Critical Realist Epistemology / 38
Critical Realism II: Comparison and Contrast / 46
Critical Realism a Foundation for Metaphysics / 56
3 The Question of Method / 59
Reality as Anticipated in Knowing / 59
Appropriating the Aristotelian Tradition / 62
Establishing Ontological Commitments / 66
Whitehead and Process Metaphysics / 69
Method and Ockham’s Razor / 72
Ontology as ‘Truth Making’ / 74
Metaphysics, Language, and Logic / 77
The A Priori in Knowing / 81
Myth and Metaphysics / 86
Recto Running Head vii

Phenomenology / 89
An Outline of Metaphysics / 92
4 Metaphysics of the Self / 97
Lonergan and Descartes / 98
First-Person Language: G.E.M. Anscombe / 101
Confusions over Self-Knowledge / 108
First-Person Ontology: E.J. Lowe / 110
First-Person Ontology: Sydney Shoemaker / 117
The Divided Self: J.R. Lucas / 118
5 On Knowing and Naming / 123
Kripke and Putnam versus the Frege-Russell Thesis / 124
Searle’s Critique / 127
Empiricist Presuppositions / 129
Lonergan on Reference and Demonstratives / 131
Assessment of Kripke and Putnam / 134
Problems in Searle / 138
Conclusion / 140
6 Natural Kinds: From Description to Explanation / 141
Our Knowledge of What There Is in Nature: The Essentialist/Anti-
essentialist Debate / 142
Beyond Primary and Secondary Qualities / 154
Explanation: The Formal Cause as a Set of Internal Terms
and Relations / 165
The Natural-Kinds Debate: A Critical Realist Assessment / 174
7 Universals, Tropes, Substance, and Events / 193
Universals / 194
Tropes / 196
Lewis on Properties / 196
Possible-Worlds Semantics / 199
A Critique of Lewis / 202
Possibility as Intelligibility / 205
Substance / 207
A Critical Realist Approach to Substance / 212
How to Understand Universals / 217
Substance: Unity-Identity-Whole versus ‘Body’ / 222
Further Elucidations: Loux’s Questions on Substance / 228
Strawson and Whitehead on Substance / 232
Events and Occurrences / 235
viii Contents

8 Causality / 243
Counterfactual Theory / 252
A Broader Perspective on Causality / 255
Problems from Hume / 259
Causation Present in Consciousness / 262
The Statistical Turn / 264
9 Dispositions, Development, and Supervenience / 269
Lonergan on Potency, Emergence, and Development / 271
Directedness and Supervenience: Martin on Dispositions / 283
Kim on Supervenience / 287
10 Metaphysics of the Social / 297
Issues of Method: Terms and Relations / 300
The Ontology of Social Relations / 303
Value as Final Cause / 307
Persons as Interdependent / 311
Intersubjective Communication as Causal / 312
The Ontology of Language / 317
Mutual Self-Mediation / 320
The Quasi-Operator / 323
The Ontology of History / 326
Conclusion / 332
Notes / 343
Bibliography / 367
Index / 375
Contents ix

Acknowledgments
I should like to thank my wife Christina Beards for her painstaking work
correcting the manuscript of this book. I also thank my colleagues at the
Maryvale Institute: Jean Pearson, for her helpful comments on the work in
progress, and Paul James, for his work on the index. I owe a considerable
debt of gratitude to two anonymous reviewers of the University of Toronto
Press for their extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of this work.
I would like to express my gratitude to those individuals and groups who
have generously contributed to the funding of this book: Professor
Richard M. Liddy, of the Lonergan Center, Seton Hall University, NJ; Rev.
Professor Jean-Marc Laporte, S.J., Provincial, and the Jesuits of the
Province of Upper Canada; Professor Francisco Sierra Gutierrez and the
Cosmopolis: Lonergan Research Group, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana,
Bogotá, Colombia; Dr Jairo Humberto Cifuentes Madrid, Academic Vice-
President, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia; and Rev. Fr
Paul Watson, Director, and Maryvale Institute, Birmingham, U.K.
Chapter 5 of the book appeared earlier in a slightly different form, in
Method: Journal of Lonergan Studies 8.2 (October 1990): 106–28. I would
therefore like to thank the editors of that journal for their kind permission
to use the material in the present work. Some of the material on G.E.M.
Anscombe in chapter 4 appeared in my article ‘Assessing Anscombe,’ in
the International Philosophical Quarterly 67.1 (2007): 39–58.
Recto Running Head xi

Method in Metaphysics:
Lonergan and the Future of Analytical
Philosophy
Recto Running Head 1

Introduction
‘Metaphysics’ in this book is taken to mean knowledge of reality acquired
through philosophical reflection and analysis. I think that all of the
philosophers whose work is discussed in this book, and who believe that
metaphysics is a worthwhile pursuit, would endorse this initial definition.
However, one may observe immediately that this description of what meta-
physics is about includes within it reference to our cognitive processes.
Metaphysics, we have said, is knowledge achieved through philosophical
investigation. This at once suggests that it is in some fashion distinguished
from other ways in which we might acquire knowledge of reality, of the
world: through common sense, physical science, history, scholarship, reli-
gious belief, literature, and the arts. While in the ancient and medieval
periods, the fact of being able to achieve knowledge of reality, of being,
through philosophical analysis may have been taken largely for granted
(excepting schools of scepticism), in the modern and postmodern periods
whether philosophy can contribute to our knowledge of reality and how it
can be said to do so in addition to, or alongside, other human cognitive
approaches have been questions central to philosophical debate.
This book focuses on the renewal of metaphysics, especially in Anglo-
American or analytical philosophical circles in the last thirty to forty years,
and also upon the contributions to these new metaphysical discussions that
the work of Bernard Lonergan can make. Both questions concerning the
legitimacy of metaphysics noted above have been part of the recent history
of analytical philosophy. In both the logical positivist and ordinary language
(of ‘strict observance’) phases of recent Anglo-American philosophy, meta-
physics was rejected because, it was argued, it could not contribute in any
meaningful fashion to our knowledge of reality. The developments in
Recto Running Head 3

Anglo-American philosophy discussed in this book demonstrate that this
negative view has been overturned in the view of many philosophers
working in that tradition. In chapter 1 I will present an overview of some of
these philosophical developments. While I focus primarily upon analytical
philosophy and Lonergan’s thought, the contributions of a number of
philosophers in the continental tradition are also brought into the discus-
sion. But, as will be evident from the discussions in this book, those
philosophers who now readily embrace the task of metaphysical analysis do
so well aware of the methodological issues that still arise from questions
concerning the very legitimacy of metaphysics. This book, therefore,
stresses the importance of Lonergan’s contribution, which, in an open-
eyed fashion, addresses the question of the method of metaphysics: How
are conclusions regarding individual issues in metaphysics to be arrived at
on the basis of a more general philosophical strategy?
Making a case for metaphysics in current philosophy has, then, to
involve coming to grips with the questions of whether there can be meta-
physical knowledge of reality, and how that knowledge is to be understood
vis-à-vis our other knowledge claims about the world and the various areas
of human life in which we explore our life and the world around us. It may
be something of a historical exaggeration but I think there is truth in
saying that, while the objections to the legitimacy of metaphysics in the
modern period had to do with how its claims could be reconciled with
those of physical science, the postmodern objections are to metaphysics as
some putative, overarching account of reality providing criteria against
which the insights and activities of ordinary language, art, religion, and lit-
erature must be assessed.
Lonergan’s view is that metaphysics is by no means the whole of knowl-
edge, but that it is in some sense the whole in knowledge: it can provide an
integrated account of what is meaningful and what is meaningless in
human discourse about reality. Of course, the more astute among post-
modern philosophers recognize that one cannot, in some way, do without
the language of metaphysics, and that criticisms of it therefore, in fact,
employ its resources. However, I do not think that such positions are fully
cognizant of the way in which this type of argument – the argument indi-
cating the self-reversing or self-destructive nature of a position – when
further developed, inevitably leads to an affirmation of our ability to arrive
at objective knowledge of reality.
Lonergan’s critical realism deploys this method of refuting the sceptic to
establish a core position in cognitional theory and epistemology. This core
position is, in turn, the basis for an approach to metaphysics that attempts
to critically validate fundamental elements in metaphysics. Establishing a
fundamental position in metaphysics, on the basis of arguments in episte-
4 Method in Metaphysics

mology and cognitional theory, also provides criteria for assessing the con-
tributions to our metaphysical knowledge of the world that may be made
by science, common sense, scholarship, literature, and other human cog-
nitive endeavours. Any argument or discussion in philosophy, or in any
other area of human life, cannot help but distinguish between the mean-
ingful and the meaningless, and between the true and the false. The
strength of Lonergan’s philosophy lies in its success in making explicit
(and in arguing convincingly that it has made explicit) some basic criteria
for deciding between meaning and absence of meaning, between truth
and falsity – criteria of which we are conscious in our daily thinking and
reasoning.
Critical realism, then, is the key factor in arguing for a coherent
approach to metaphysics in general and for conclusions (some more defi-
nite, some less so) in various areas of metaphysics. The central theme of
this book is the way incoherence and mistakes in metaphysics result from
an overt or covert empiricist epistemology, on the one hand, and from an
uncritical idealism, or rationalism, on the other. These ‘traditions’ or ten-
dencies in metaphysics are as much in evidence today in the renewed ana-
lytical metaphysics as they were in the whole of the history of philosophy.
On the critical realist position reality is to be known not by sensation
alone, nor by sensation and the use of our intelligence to elaborate theo-
ries or hypothetical constructs, but by a compound of attention to sensa-
tion, intelligent understanding, and, in addition, reasoned judgment as to
what is or is not (or probably is or is not) the case with regard to reality.
Lonergan’s critical realism is discussed and defended in some detail in
chapter 2, but succeeding chapters in the book also refer back to, and reit-
erate in argument, the basic position on knowing reality from which Lon-
ergan’s method in metaphysics follows.
In chapter 3 the question of method in metaphysics is raised explicitly.
The renewed interest among analytical philosophers in metaphysics goes
hand in hand with an awareness of the question as to which method or
methods should be adopted in metaphysical analysis. Lonergan’s
approach to metaphysics is, therefore, introduced in a context in which I
survey and critically assess some of the approaches on offer in the new
work in metaphysics. Analytical metaphysics is characterized by perspec-
tives emerging from the Anglo-American philosophical tradition as it
developed in the twentieth century, and so the role of language analysis
remains important in the new work on metaphysics. Metaphysics is seen as
‘basic semantics.’ In elaborating such semantics some analytical meta-
physicians attempt to identify the ontological features of reality that make
our linguistic claims true or false. Lonergan’s approach is, in fact, not at all
opposed to this kind of semantic analysis. But it analyses language as an
Introduction 5

expression of conscious, intelligent, and reasonable human persons.
Again, such an emphasis, upon the conscious, intentional activities of the
agent expressed in language, is not at variance with a good deal of the
philosophical writing in current analytical philosophy. In fact, in analytical
philosophy the move away from the antimetaphysical prejudices of the
earlier periods of positivism and ordinary language analysis has, at the
same time, been a move away from the prejudice against investigating the
conscious, mental activities of human beings.
It is the philosophical investigation of what constitutes human persons
as conscious unities that provides the topic for discussion in chapter 4 on
the nature of the self. In this chapter I move from what may be termed
background discussion or discussion of foundations to dealing with an
area of metaphysical debate current in analytical philosophy. From the
perspective of Lonergan’s philosophy the transition from background to
foreground discussion in evaluating arguments on the ontology of the self
is appropriate, since it is clear that, on the basis of Lonergan’s arguments,
in coming to know my knowing (in cognitional analysis and epistemology)
I also come to know something of the reality of myself as a conscious unity
– a dynamic, active unity going through the various conscious activities in
coming to know.
Some of the most seminal debates on the nature of language to take
place in twentieth-century analytical philosophy emerged from discussions
of how we refer to things or persons in the world. Frege and Russell made
distinctive contributions to this question at the beginning of the twentieth
century, but their views were challenged towards the end of the century by
philosophers like Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam. This new account of
naming and reference invoked the idea of possible worlds in order to
clarify what it is we mean when we refer to an individual. The discussion of
possible worlds opened out in other directions as analysts attempted to use
the idea to throw light on our modal language, our talk of possibility,
impossibility, and necessity. It was clear in this case that analysis of the lan-
guage of reference was turning into a full-blown metaphysics. Some wel-
comed this and other rejected it. In chapter 5 I examine this important
stage of the development of analytical metaphysics and I again offer a crit-
ical evaluation of it from the perspective of the critical realism already
argued for.
The ‘essentialism’ that Kripke’s view gave rise to was rejected by others,
some objecting to it in the name of the fluidity of language, as described
by the later Wittgenstein, others for different, more strongly metaphysical
reasons. This essentialism appeared to be saying that once science has got
hold of the essence of an object then that is essentially what this object is,
across all possible worlds. Of course, the question arises as to whether
6 Method in Metaphysics

science does get hold of the essence of things in this way. So we see in ana-
lytical metaphysics the debate over ‘natural kinds.’ Does science definitely
give us the essences of things in our world? If it does not, is the very idea
of definite essences philosophically problematic? Even if we do grant that
science can at least move towards giving us information on the true
essences of things, not just as they are described but as they are independ-
ent of human concerns, how does this knowing of things relate to other
types of identification of things in the world around us, such as goes on in
our ordinary discourse?
In chapter 6 I examine some of the important contributions to this dis-
cussion in the work of recent analytical philosophers and I outline ways in
which Lonergan’s distinctive contributions in this area can illuminate
some of the issues highlighted in the questions noted above. Since the
appearance of Aristotle’s metaphysics the notion of ‘substance’ has been at
the centre of metaphysical debate. Some philosophers, like Whitehead,
have rejected the idea as hopelessly static and a result of picture-thinking.
For Whitehead the rise of modern science has pointed the way beyond sub-
stance to the idea of metaphysical entities that are more dynamic. The
notion of ‘picture-thinking’ is a crucial one here. In continental thought
also there has been a sustained campaign against ‘presencing’ meta-
physics. All these objections to the metaphysics of the tradition seem to
point in the same direction. It is in the direction of the criticism of
knowing as mere looking, or sensing. And according to Heidegger and
Richard Rorty the whole tradition is captivated by this illusory image of
objective knowledge, as looking at what is out there to be looked at; there-
fore its metaphysics has similarly gone awry.
In this book I emphasise that Lonergan, quite independently of these
thinkers, identified a fundamental problem with the epistemology of
much of the tradition in terms of its empiricist notion of ‘knowing as
looking.’ And the metaphysics that is the correlative of such knowing as
looking is pretty much a metaphysics in some way tied down by the
descriptive accounts we can give of everyday objects. Questions naturally
arise as to how such metaphysics copes with the challenge of the appar-
ently ‘counter-intuitive’ world revealed by science.
However, also underlined in this book is the way Lonergan argues that a
genuine critical realism, arriving at objective knowledge and therefore
metaphysics, can be developed from aspects of the tradition (notably from
key aspects of the thought of Aristotle and Aquinas). This realism can
indeed challenge the dominant ‘picture-thinking’ metaphysics of empiri-
cism and its offshoots (which include scepticism). The discussion of sub-
stance in chapter 7, therefore, takes place in the context of the debate over
these other, far-reaching issues in philosophy. While many analytical meta-
Introduction 7

Other documents randomly have
different content

CHAP. IV. THE CONSONANTS.
§ 37. The consonant-signs to be discust here both in regard to value
and occurrence in the Gothic language hav alredy been enumerated
in § 2. We divide the consonantal sounds in s o n o r o u s consonants
and n o i z d s o u n d s. Cp. Sievers, Grundzüge der Phonetik4
, p. 70
et seq. Accordingly, the Gothic consonant-signs w, j, l, m, n, r,
represent the s o n o r o u s s o u n d s, the rest the noizd sounds.
A. SONOROUS CONSONANTS.
1. The semivowels w and j.
§ 38. Germanic w and j ar the vowels u and i uzed as consonants;
hense in Gothic the interchange between i and j, u and w,
according to their position which determins their fonetic values as
vowels or consonants. The consonantal i and u, which in other
languages ar denoted by the same signs as the vocalic i and u, hav
special signs in Gothic, j and w. These sounds ar also calld
'semivowels'.
w
§ 39. The sign of the Gothic alfabet which we represent by w, is,
according to its form and alfabetic position, the Gr. υ. For this it also

stands in Greek foren words, for exampl, Pawlus, Παῦλος;
Daweid, Δαυίδ; aíwaggêljô, εὐαγγέλιον; paraskaíwê,
παρασκευή. But the Gothic w stands not only for the Gr. υ of the
combinations αυ, ευ, in which it had perhaps at that time assumed
the value of a spirant, but also for simpl Greek υ, namely vocalic υ;
as, Swmaíôn, Συμεών; swnagôgê, συναγωγή; martwr, μάρτυρ.
But in our transcriptions of the Gothic texts the Greek vocalic υ is
exprest by y instead of w (Symaíôn, synagôgê, martyr); so, also,
for practical reasons, in this book.
Note 1. A noteworthy Gothic transcription is kawtsjô (=
Lt. cautio) in the document at Naples (§ 221, n. 3). Cp.
Wrede, 'Ostg.', 166; Zs. fda., 36, 273.
Note 2. The Gothic sign is in most of the later editions
represented by v. But because of its correspondence in
the other Germanic languages the letter w should be uzed
(as, Goth. wilja, MHG. NHG. wille, OE. willa, NE. wil). Cp.
Beitr., 12, 218 et seq.
§ 40. In Gothic words the w originally had the fonetic value of the
consonantal u (= E. w). But at Wulfila's time the u-sound seems to
hav alredy containd sumwhat of a spirant. Cp. Zs. fda., 36, 266 et
seq. (37, 121 et seq.).
Note. Latin writers uzually express the w in proper nouns
by uu. Vvilia, Uualamir; but also often by Ub: Ubadala
(= Wadila), Ubadamirus (= Wadamêrs), etc. Greek
authors mostly put οὐ for the Goth. w (as in Οὐάνδαλοι),
but also β (as in Βάνδαλοι). Cp. Dietrich, pp. 77-80.
Wrede, 'Wand.', 102; 'Ostg.', 167 et seq.
§ 41. Initial Gothic w occurs frequently; e. g., wasjan, to clothe;
witan, to know; wiljan, to wil; waír, man; warmjan, to warm.
So also before l and r; as, wlits, countenance; wrikan, to
persecute; wrôhjan, to accuse.
After the consonants: t, d, þ, s; e. g., twai, two; dwals, foolish;
þwahan, to wash; swistar, sister.

Medial w before vowels; e. g., awistr, sheepfold; saiwala, soul;
hneiwan, to bow; siggwan, to sing; ûhtwô, dawn; taíhswô,
right hand; nidwa, rust.
Note. The signs q (kw) and ƕ (hw) ar also uzually
explaind as combinations of w with k and h. There ar
reasons, however, to assume that q and ƕ ar simpl
labialized gutturals (§§ 59. 63). But on the other hand q
and ƕ in High German ar treated precisely like Goth. tw,
gw, etc. (= t, g, etc., medial w being dropt); for exampl,
Goth. ûhtwô, siggwan = OHG. ûhta, singan; and Goth.
sigqan, saíƕan = OHG. sinkan, sehan. Altho this proves
nothing as to the values of the G o t h i c signs, it certainly
shows that in p r o e t h n i c G e r m a n i c the tw, gw, etc.,
must hav denoted sounds analogous to those of kw and
hw.
§ 42. (1) w remains unchanged after l o n g vowels, d i f t h o n g s,
and c o n s o n a n t s, (a) finally, (b) before the s of the nominativ, (c)
before j; e. g., (a) lêw, n., opportunity; hlaiw, n., grave;,
waúrstw, n., work; (b) snaiws, snow; triggws, tru, faithful; (c)
lêwjan, to betray; hnaiwjan, to abase; skadwjan, to cast a shade
(< skadus, shade); arwjô, adv., in vain.
(2) in all three positions, however, w becums u after a s h o r t
vowel; e. g., (a) snau (prt. to sniwan, § 176, n. 2); triu, tree (gen.
triwis); *kniu, knee (gen. kniwis, § 94, n. 1); (b) naus, m., a ded
person (gen. nawis); *þius, servant (gen. þiwis, § 91, n. 3); (c)
mawi, gen. maujôs, girl; gawi, gen. gaujis, district; þiwi, gen.
þiujôs, maid-servant; tawida, pres. taujan, to do; *straujan, to
strew, prt. strawida; iujan, to quicken, prt. qiwida.—Cp. Grundr.,
I, 414; Zs. fda., 36, 277.
Note 1. Hense a word does not end in aw, iw; aws, iws,
except the isolated lasiws, weak (II. Cor. X, 10).
Note 2. aw for au occurs before j in usskawjan, to
awake; II. Tim. II, 26 (in B); I. Cor. XV, 34 (ussk..jiþ in

MS.); and in the nom. pl. usskawai (unskawai in MS.),
wakeful; I. Thess. V, 8; cp. § 124, n. 3.
Note 3. No exampl occurs for the position of medial w
before consonants other than j and s; before n after a
short vowel u is found in qiunan (< qiwa-), to becum
alive; siuns (cp. saíƕa-).
j
§ 43. The sign j stands, as a rule, for the Greek antevocalic ι, in
Akaja, Αχαία; Marja, Μαρία; Judas, Ἰούδας; Iskarjôtês,
Ἰσκαριώτης, etc. But Gr. antevocalic ι is also often represented by
Goth. i; as, Iskariôtês, Zakarias, Gabriêl, Iûdas.—The sign j in
Gothic pronunciation probably has the value of a consonantal i, not
that of the spirant j in German.
§ 44. (a) I n i t i a l j in Gothic words: juk, yoke; jêr, year; ju, alredy;
jus, yu. (b) M e d i a l j occurs after vowels and after consonants, but
always b e f o r e vowels, never before consonants; e. g., midjis,
'medius'; lagjan, to lay; niujis, new; frauja, lord; þrija, 'tria';
bajôþs, both. (c) ji is contracted into ei after a consonant
belonging to the same syllabl, but is retaind when the syllabl begins
with j (cp. Beitr. 16, 282). The latter is the case when it is preceded
by a short high-toned vowel with a singl consonant or by a long
stem-vowel without a consonant. Exampls—concerning particularly
the masculins (and neuters) of the ja-stems (§§ 92. 127)—ar: har-
jis, tô-jis (doer), but haír-deis, dat. haírd-ja; —also the I. Weak
Conjugation (§ 185): sô-kja, sô-keis, sô-keiþ; san-dja, san-
deiþ; miki-lja, miki-leiþ; but nas-ja, nas-jis, nas-jiþ; stô-ja,
stô-jis, stô-jiþ.
Note 1. The rule under (c) may, practically, also be worded
in the following manner: ji becums ei after a long stem-

syllabl and after secondary syllabls, but remains ji after a
short stem-syllabl and immediately after a long stem-
vowel.—For exceptions, s. § 95; § 108, n. 2; § 132, n. 1.
Note 2. Only i is often employd for medial ij before
vowels; s. § 10, n. 4; for j occurring sporadically in the
inflection of saian, s. § 22, n. 1.
§ 45. j is never f i n a l; in this position it always becums i; e. g.,
harjis, acc. hari; mawi, gen. maujôs (s. § 42, 2, c); taui, deed,
gen. tôjis.
Note 1. For the change of aj and ai, s. § 21, n. 2.
2. Liquids.
l
§ 46. Gothic l occurs often,—initially, medially, and finally; as, laggs,
long; galaubjan, to believ; liuhaþ, light; laúhmuni, lightning;
wiljan, to wil; aljis, 'alius'; blôma, flower; —dubl l, as in fill, hide;
fulls, ful; wulla, wool.
Note 1. l is syllabic (§ 27), for exampl, in fugls, bird
(fowl); tuggl, constellation, star; tagl, hair; swumfsl,
pond; sigljan, to seal.
Note 2. Goth. l always corresponds to Gr. λ. It is
interpolated in alabalstraún, ἀλάβαστρον.
r

§ 47. r is equivalent to Gr. ρ and occurs frequently in Gothic words;
e. g., raíhts, right; raubôn, to rob; baíran, to bear; fidwôr, four.
—Dubl r is rare: qaírrus, meek; andstaúrran, to threten; faírra,
far.
Note 1. Syllabic r (§ 27) occurs, for exampl, in akrs, field;
brôþr, dat. sg. of brôþar (§ 114), brother; figgrs,
finger; tagr, tear; hlûtrs, pure; fagrs, suitabl; maúrþr,
murder; huggrjan, to hunger.
Note 2. Every i before r becums aí, and every u in the
same position aú; s. §§ 20. 24.
Note 3. Concerning r from z, s. § 78, n. 4; § 24, n. 2.
3. Nasals.
m
§ 48. m occurs in all positions of a word; as, mizdô, f., reward;
mêna, m., moon; ams, m., shoulder; guma, m., man; finally: nam,
I took; in the terminations of the dat. pl.,—dagam, etc.; 1st pers.
pl.,—nimam, nêmum, etc.—Dubl (mm) in swamms (cp. § 80, n.
1), spunge; wamm, n., spot; in the pronominal dat. sg.,—imma,
blindamma.
Note. Syllabic m (§ 27) in maiþms, present; bagms,
tree.
n

§ 49. Initial n in nahts, night; niujis, new; ni (negation), etc.;
medial: kuni, n., kin; ains, one, etc.; final: laun, n., reward; niun,
nine; often in inflection; as, dat. sg. hanin, inf. niman, nêmun (3d
pers. pl. prt.), etc.
Dubl n (nn) occurs frequently; e. g., brinnan, to burn; spinnan, to
spin; rinnan, to run; kann, I know; kannjan, to make known;
manna, man; brunna, wel, spring. Dubl n remains finally and
before j, but is simplified before other consonants (s. § 80): kant,
kunþa (inf. kunnan), rant (2nd pers. sg. prt.; inf. rinnan),
brunsts (inf. brinnan), ur-runs (< rinnan), outlet.
Note. Syllabic n (§ 27) in usbeisns, f., expectation;
taikns, f., token; ibns, even; laugnjan, to deny;
swêgnjan, to triumf, rejoice.
§ 50. Before guttural consonants n becums a guttural nasal which
(in imitation of the Gr.) is denoted by g (gg; s. § 67).
Note. The (guttural) nasal disappears before h, and the
preceding short vowel is lengthend. S. § 5, b; § 15, b
(Brgm., I, 182 et seq.).
B. NOIZD SOUNDS.
1. Labials.
p
§ 51. The letter p, which does not occur very often in Gothic,
corresponds to Gr. π.

(a) I n i t i a l l y, p may be regarded as being altogether wanting in
purely Gothic words; the exampls which do occur ar either obviously
foren words or at least etymologically obscure, if not loanwords too:
plinsjan, to dance; plats, pach; anapraggan, to harass; paida,
coat; puggs, purse; peikabagms, date-palm; pund, pound;
plapja, street ('platea'); pistikeins, πιστικός, paúrpura, purpl.
(b) p occurs in purely Gothic words m e d i a l l y and f i n a l l y; e. g.,
slêpan, to sleep; greipan, to gripe; ƕôpan, to boast; skapjan, to
shape, make; hlaupan, to run; diups, deep; waírpan, to throw;
hilpan, to help; skip, ship; iup, upwards.—Initial sp in speiwan,
to spit; sparwa, sparrow; spillôn, to narrate; spinnôn, to spin.
Note 1. pp does not occur.
Note 2. p before t becums f in gaskafts, f., creature (cp.
skapjan); ƕôftuli, f., glory (cp. ƕôpan). Cp. § 81.
f
§ 52. Gothic f in foren words corresponds to Gr. φ; e. g., Filippus,
Φίλιππος; Kajafa, Καϊάφας. Latin writers render Goth. f mostly by
ph (Dietrich, p. 75); as, Dagalaiphus, Phaeba. Hense Goth. f was
probably a b i l a b i a l, not a labiodental spirant, as is also evident
from Goth. fimf, hamfs.
Note. f is regarded as labiodental by Jellinek; Zs. fda., 36,
275 et seq.
§ 53. (a) I n i t i a l f occurs often in Gothic words; e. g., fôtus, foot;
fadar, father; flôdus, flud; faíhu (catl), muney; fûls, foul; frôþs,
wise, judicious; frius, cold; fidwôr, 4.
(b) M e d i a l l y and f i n a l l y f occurs in but a small number of
Gothic words; as, hlifan, to steal; hafjan, to heav; hiufan, to
lament; lôfa, m., palm of the hand; ufar, over; afar, after. Before

consonants: luftus, air; hamfs, maimd; tweifls, dout; wulfs, wolf;
—(final) fimf, five; hôf (prt. of hafjan); þarf, I need (inf.
þaúrban).
Note 1. Finally and before the s of the nom., f occurs very
often for medial b; s. § 56.
Note 2. Medial f before t (n) stands for b (§ 56, n. 4),
before t also for p (§ 51, n. 2).
Note 3. ff is not found.
b
§ 54. b corresponds to Gr. β, for which it stands in foren words; e.
g., barbarus, βάρβαρος; Iakôb, Ἰακώβ. The pronunciation of the
Gr. β was that of a labial soft spirant [nearly = E. v]. In like manner
Goth. b has the value of a soft (voiced) labiolabial spirant
m e d i a l l y after vowels, while i n i t i a l l y and medially after
consonants it denotes a soft stop (= E. b).
Note 1. Gothic b between vowels in Latin foren words
stands for Lt. v, but after m for b: Silbanus, Silvanus;
Naúbaímbaír, November; (ana)kumbjan, cumbere.
Note 2. In Gothic names Latin writers employ Lt. b for
Gothic b initially and after a consonant (as, Amala-
berga, Hildi-bald, Albila), but medially between vowels
Lt. v is uzed (as, Liuva, Erelieva); cp. Dietrich, p. 71;
Beitr., 1, 148 et seq.; Wrede, 'Ostg.', 169; Zs. fda., 36,
275.
§ 55. Exampls of b:
(a) i n i t i a l l y: baíran, to bear; beitan, to bite; brikan, to break;
brûkjan, to uze; blêsan, to blow; biudan, to offer; blôma, flower;

brôþar, brother; bôka, letter; bnauan, to rub.
(b) m e d i a l l y: liuba (w. m. adj.), dear; galaubjan, to believ;
graban, to dig; sibja, relationship; arbi, inheritance; kalbô, hefer;
—haubiþ, hed; hlaibis (gen. of hlaifs), bred; sibun, seven;
haban, to hav; skaban, to shave; (bi-)leiban, to remain; liban,
to liv; biraubôn, to rob; salbôn, to salv, anoint.
Note. bb occurs in foren words only; as, sabbatus.
§ 56. b after consonants (l, m, r) remains finally, before the s of the
nom., and before the t of the 2nd pers. sg. prt.; postvocalic b
becums f. This means that postvocalic b was a soft spirant (§ 54)
which, finally, changed into the corresponding hard spirant, while
postconsonantal b, medially and finally, had the value of a stop.
Hense giban, to giv, 1st and 3d pers. sg. prt.: gaf, 2nd. pers. gaft,
2nd sg. imper.: gif; hlaifs, bred, acc. hlaif, nom. pl. hlaibôs; —but
lamb, lam; dumbs, dum; swaírban, to wipe, prt. swarb.
Note 1. Our texts contain a few exceptions to the rule of
final f for medial b after vowels, but the preponderant
number of exampls prove the validity of the rule which is
fonetically founded and has a striking analogon in the OS.
geƀan—gaf; lioƀo—liof (but lamb). The exceptional cases
with final b (21 in all) occur only in definit parts of the
texts (7 in Lu., 5 in the epistls to the Thess., 4 in Jo., 3 in
Skeir., in all the other texts only onse each in Mk. and
Eph.). Therefore the anomalous bs may be referd to the
writers of the respectiv parts, who either from purely
orthografic considerations put the medial bs also finally, or
in order to express a later pronunciation as it existed at
their time, according to which voiced sounds occurd also
finally. The latter supposition is founded on the fact that in
the Arezzo document (of the 6th century) the spelling
Gudilub occurs.—Cp. also the remarks on the interchange
of d and þ in § 74, n. 1.

The exceptions in the verb ar rare, only grôb (Lu. VI, 48)
and gadôb (Skeir. 42); —the forms with f occur in gaf,
gaft, gif (very often); onse each: grôf (inf. graban),
swaif (inf. sweiban), bilaif (inf. bileiban), skauf (inf.
skiuban). Accordingly, we may safely write draif (prt. of
dreiban, to drive).
Of nouns only hlaifs is often found: nom. hlaifs (12
times, onse hlaibs), acc. hlaif (19 times, hlaib seven
times); —twalif, twelv (12 times, twalib 3 times);
accordingly, also *ainlif (dat. ainlibim).
Furthermore the following nominativs must be regarded
as normal forms: *stafs, element (only stabim occurs);
*laufs, leaf (only galaubamma 3 times, filugalaubis,
galubaim), *gadôfs, becuming (onse gadôf, 4 times
gadôb), *liufs, dear (only forms with more than one
syllabl occur: liubai, liuba, liubana, etc.). Lastly, also
*þiufs (= OS. thiof), thief, tho the nom. accidentally
occurs (4 times) as þiubs, beside þiubôs (twice), þiubê.
Note 2. Subject to the abuv rule ar also the preps. of and
uf, the f of which becums medial by enclisis and is
changed into b before the following vowel; ab-u, ub-uh.
In composition, however, f remains: af-êtja, voracious
eater; uf-aiþeis, under oath. (Cp. us in § 78, n. 4).
Note 3. An apparent exception is þarf, I want (for þarb),
pl. þaúrbum; but þarf has real f (§ 53) and must be kept
apart from the pl. with b (s. ahd. gr., § 101). b stands
correctly in the adj. gaþaúrbs. Cp. § 79, n. 2.
Note 4. f before t in derivativ words stands for b
elsewhere (§ 81): gifts, f., gift (< giban, onse
fragibtim; Lu. I, 27), þaúrfts, necessity. b is common
before n: ibns, stibna, daubnan, drôbnan, but the
ending -ubni interchanges with -ufni; as, fraistubni,

temptation, but waldufni, power; aflifnan, to remain, be
left; cp. laiba, remnant.
2. Gutturals.
k
§ 57. Goth. k corresponds to Greek κ, Lt. c; e. g., Kêfas, Κηφᾶς;
aíkklêsjô, ἐκκλησία; laíktjô, lectio. Goth. k in Greek words
represents also χ; as, kaúrazein, Χοραζίν; ark-aggilus,
ἀρχάγγελος. The Gr. sign χ is but rarely retaind, always in χristus (s.
§ 2). Cp. Wrede, 'Ostg.', 54.
Note. The labialized k (kw) has a special sign (q § 59) in
Gothic.
§ 58. Exampls of k: (a) i n i t i a l l y: kniu, knee; kaúrn, corn; kuni,
kin; kalds, cold; kiusan, to choose; kalbô, f., calf; —sk: skeinan,
to shine; skaidan, to separate. (b) m e d i a l l y: brikan, to break;
aukan, to increase; akrs, field; reiks, mighty; mikils, great;
waúrkjan, to work; laikan, to leap; rakjan, to strech; f i n a l l y:
ik, I; mik, me; juk, yoke.
Note 1. kk occurs in smakka, fig; sakkus, sack.
Note 2. In derivativ words h takes the place of k before t
(§ 81); as, saúhts, sickness (cp. siuks); wahtwô, wach
(cp. wakan); brûhta (prt. of brûkjan); þâhta (prt. of
þagkjan).—Sinse there occur no exampls of the 2nd pers.
prt. of verbs in k (as, wakan, aukan, têkan), it is
uncertain whether the k before t remaind k or was
changed into h (wôkt or wôht?).

q
§ 59. The Gothic sign q does not occur in the Greek alfabet, the
corresponding sign being borrowd from the Latin (Q). In Lt. words it
corresponds to Lt. qu (qartus; Rom. XVI, 23) to which it most likely
corresponds also fonetically. The Lt. qu denoted a labialized k-sound
which was a simpl consonant not forming position. Cp. Zs. fdph., 12,
481 et seq.
Note. The dubl sign kw (kv) which is uzed beside q for
the Gothic character is due to the perception that in the
cognate languages Gothic q is represented by a
combination of consonants which appears as k with a w-
sound closely attacht to it, and is therefore exprest by two
signs: in OE. by cw, in ON. by kv, in OHG. MHG. NHG. by
qu. Hense Goth. qiþan, to say, = OE. cweþan, ON.
kveþa, OHG. quedan. But from this nothing certain can be
inferd about the fonetic value of Goth. q, altho it is
p o s s i b l that its pronunciation was precisely the same as
that of NHG. NE. qu.—Cp. also § 41, n. 1.
§ 60. Exampls of q: qinô, woman; *qius, pl. qiwai, alive; qaírnus,
mil; qiman, to cum; qrammiþa, moisture; naqaþs, naked; aqizi,
ax; riqis, darkness; sigqan, to sink, prt. sagq.
h
§ 61. Gothic h in Greek words stands for the ruf breathing (as,
Haíbraius, Ἑβραῖος; Hêrôdês, Ἡρώδης), but the ruf breathing is
often disregarded (as, ôsanna, ὡσαννά). Accordingly, Goth. initial h
had the value of a mere breathing. Medially and finally it may stil
hav had the value of a fricativ sound (HG. ch). Cp. the assimilations

(§ 62, n. 3) and breaking (§ 62, n. 1). Also initially before
consonants, (hl, hn, hr (ƕ)), the h had probably retaind a stronger
sound.
Note 1. Latin writers render Gothic h by their h (as,
Hildibald, Hildericus); but they also omit it; as,
Ariamirus, eils = hails in the epigram (s. § 21, n. 1),
Zs. fda. 1, 379; cp. Dietrich, p. 77.
Note 2. Labialized h (hw) has a special sign in Gothic: ƕ
(§§ 63. 64).
Note 3. In foren names h is sumtimes interposed medially
between vowels; as, Iôhannês, Ιωάννης; Abraham,
Ἀβραάμ. Cp. Es. Tegnér, Tidskr. for filol. N. R. 7, 304 et
seq.
§ 62. Exampls for h: (a) i n i t i a l l y: haúrn, horn; hana, cock;
haírtô, hart; hails, hole, sound; hund, hundred; hafjan, to heav;
—i n i t i a l c o m b i n a t i o n s: hlaifs, bred; hliuma, m., hearing;
hlifan, to steal; hlûtrs, pure; hlahjan, to laf; hnaiws, low;
hrains, clean; hrôpjan, to call; hrôt, n., roof.—(b) m e d i a l l y:
faíhu, muney; taíhun, ten; teihan, to show; tiuhan, to pul;
saíhs, six; nahts, night; liuhtjan, to light; filhan, to conceal;
swaíhra, 'socer'.—(c) f i n a l l y: jah, and; -uh, and (cp. § 24, n. 2);
falh (prt. of filhan); taúh (prt. of tiuhan), etc.
Note 1. Before h (as before r) i is broken to aí, u to aú;
cp. §§ 20. 24.
Note 2. Dropping of n before h, which made the preceding
vowel long: fâhan (< fanhan), þûhta (< þunhta), etc.;
cp. § 50, n. 1; § 5, b; § 15, b.
Note 3. Final h in -uh (or -h; § 24, n. 2), jah, nih, may
be assimilated to the initial sound of a following word. But
rarely in the gospels (cod. argent.) and in codex B, and
only before particls or prns. beginning with þ; frequently,
however, also before other consonants, in codex A and
Skeir; as, wasuþþan (= wasuh-þan, but it was); Mk. I,

6; sumaiþþan (= sumaih-þan, but sum); Mt. XXVI, 67;
sijaiþþan (= sijaih-þan, but it shall be); Mt. V, 37;
jaþþê (= jah-þê, and if); niþþan (= nih-þan, and not);
—before o t h e r consonants in A: jalliban (= jah liban,
and liv); II. Cor. I, 8; jaggatraua (= jah gatraua, and I
trust); Rom. XIV, 14; jaddu (= jah du, and to); II. Cor.
II, 16; jabbrusts (= jah brusts); II. Cor. VII, 15;
nukkant (= nuh kant, knowest thou now?); I. Cor. VII,
16; exceptionally also in the codex argent., but only in
Lu.: janni (= jah ni); Lu. VII, 32; nissijai (= nih sijai);
Lu. XX, 16.
Note 4. Final h is sumtimes dropt (in consequence of
having lost its sharp sound? But cp. Beitr., XV, 277):
ƕarjô (for ƕarjôh); Mk. XV, 6; ƕammê (for
ƕammêh); Gal. V, 3; ƕarjanô (for ƕarjanôh); Skeir.
43; oftener inu (in A) for inuh, without; the h of
consonant-combinations is dropt in hiuma; Lu. VI, 17.
VIII, 4 (elsewhere hiuhma, multitude); drausnôs; Skeir.
50 (beside drauhsna, crum); als (for alhs); Mk. XV, 38,
etc. All these cases ar probably due to the copyists, and
most of them hav therefore been amended by the editors.
Cp. Bernhardt, Vulfila, LIII et seq.—Also superfluous h
occurs: snauh (for snau); I. Thess. II, 16; here,
however, it is perhaps the enclitic -h (= -uh, § 24, n. 2).
Note 5. In derivativ words h occurs in certain cases beside
k (s. § 58, n. 2) and g (§ 66, n. 1).
ƕ
§ 63. The sound of ƕ is peculiar to the Gothic, and has no
equivalent in Gr. The Gothic sign (whose alfabetic position is that of

the Greek ψ) is uzually exprest by hv (hw), because all the
corresponding words of the remaining Germanic languages (at least
initially) hav hw (hu, hv); as, Goth. ƕeits = OHG. hwîz, OS. OE.
hwît, ON. hvîtr, white. But there ar reasons which justify the
assumption that the Goth. ƕ was a simpl consonant. Fonetically, it
may be regarded as a labialized h (or a voiceless w = NE. wh?
Grundr., I, 411). It is therefore recommendabl to represent the simpl
Gothic sign by the unitary ligature ƕ. Cp. Zs. fdph., 12, 481 et seq.;
Beitr., 12, 218 et seq.
Note. ƕ and hw ar not identical in Gothic. This is proved
by the fact that in composition the final h and the
following initial w ar not exprest by ƕ, but by hw:
þaírhwakandans, keeping wach (thruout); Lu. II, 8;
ubuhwôpida (= uf-uh-wôpida; ufwôpida < uf-
wôpjan), and he cried out; Lu. XVIII, 38.—The simpl
sound of ƕ is also evident from the fact that the verb
saíƕan is inflected like the verbal stems ending in a singl
consonant (§ 34, n. 1), and that in reduplication ƕ is
treated like a singl consonant (ƕaíƕôp, § 178). Cp.
Holtzmann, altd. gr. I, 25, together with § 41, n. 1, abuv.
§ 64. Exampls of ƕ: i n i t i a l l y: ƕas, who; ƕaírnei, f., skul;
ƕaírban, to walk about; ƕeila, time; ƕôpan, to boast; ƕeits,
white; ƕaiteis, wheat; —m e d i a l l y: aƕa, water; saíƕan, to
see; leiƕan, to lend; þeiƕô, thunder; nêƕa, near; aíƕa-tundi,
f., brambl-bush; —also f i n a l l y: saƕ, saƕt (prt. of saíƕan),
nêƕ, near.
Note. i and u ar broken before ƕ as wel as before h; cp.
§ 62, n. 1.
§ 65. g corresponds to Greek γ, also as a guttural nasal; as,
synagôgê, συναγωγή; aggilus, ἄγγελος.—The pronunciation of the
Gothic initial g was quite certainly that of a soft (voiced) stop; final
and medial g was possibly a spirant.

Note 1. Latin authors render g in Gothic names by g, but
also by c; as, Caina beside Gaina (Jornandes),
Commundus (= Gummundus); medially, especially
before i, it is often dropt; as, Eila beside Agila, Egila,
Aiulf (= Aigulf), Athanaildus (= Athanagildus); cp.
Dietrich, p. 73 et seq.
Note 2. For the pronunciation of medial g as a spirant the
Latin representations may be adduced (cp. especially
Wrede, 'Ostg.', 173 et seq.); but this is contradicted by the
fact that final g does not becum h (cp. b-f, d-þ). Jellinek
(Beitr., 15, 276 et seq.; Zs. fda., 36, 85) infers a 'media
affricata' for the pronunciation of medial and final g; then
the value of a stop seems more probabl (cp. Wilmanns, D.
Gramm., I, 16).
§ 66. g occurs frequently in Goth. words, both initially and medially.
E. g. (a) gasts, guest; guma, man; gulþ, gold; gôþs, good;
giutan, to pour; greipan, to gripe, seiz; graban, to dig. (b) agis,
aw; wigs, way; gawigan, to move; steigan, to mount; ligan, to
lie; þragjan, to run; —augô, ey; tagr, tear; tigus, ten; aigan, to
hav; suffixal g: mahteigs, mighty; môdags, angry.
Also final g remains unchanged: ôg, I fear; mag, I can; wig (acc.
of wigs, way), etc.
Note. g becums h before a suffixal t attacht to it (§ 81); e.
g., mahts, mahta (prs. mag), ôhta (prs. ôg), baúhta
(inf. bugjan), brâhta (inf. briggan). But there seems to
be no change of consonants before the t of the 2nd pers.
prt. Only magt (1st mag) is found (201).—Also elsewhere
in word-formation an interchange between h and g takes
place in words belonging to the same root: taíhun, 10;
and tigus, decad; filhan, to conceal, and fulgins, adj.,
hidn; faginôn, to rejoice, and fahêþs f., joy; huggrjan,
to hunger, and hûhrus, hunger; juggs, yung; compar.
jûhiza; concerning the interchange between áig and áih,
s. § 203, n. 1. Cp. § 79, n. 2.

§ 67. g denotes also a guttural nasal (s. § 50); e. g., (n + g): laggs,
long; briggan, to bring; tuggô, tung; figgrs, finger; gaggan, to
go; —(n + k, q): drigkan, to drink; þagkjan, to think; þugkjan,
to seem; igqis, (to) yu both; sigqan, to sink; stigqan, to thrust.
Note 1. Beside the singl letter g uzed to express the
guttural nasal, gg is sumtimes found (so regularly in
codex B): siggqan, driggkan, iggqis; g is not dubld
before g; the only case, atgagggand (Mt. IX, 15) is
corrected by the editors. The reverse error occurs three
times: faúragagja (for faúragaggja, steward); Lu. VIII,
3. XVI, 1; hugridai (for huggridai); I. Cor. IV, 11. Cp.
Vulfila by Bernhardt, p. LI.
Note 2. The Latin sign (n) for the guttural nasal occurs but
a few times in Lu.; as, þank; XVII, 9; bringiþ; XV, 22.
§ 68. The combination ggw deservs special notice. (1) It is a
guttural nasal + gw, as is proved by the ng of the remaining
Germanic languages (also of the ON.): aggwus, narrow (OHG. engi,
ON. ǫngr); siggwan, to sing (OHG. singan, ON. syngva); saggws,
song. Here perhaps belongs also unmanariggws, unrestraind, wild
(cognate with OHG. ringi? Dtsch. Litteraturzeitg. 1888, p. 770).
(2) Another ggw corresponds to West-Germanic uw (OHG. uu or
uuu; cp. ahd. gr., §§ 112. 113), to ON. gg(v); this gg certainly
denotes a stop: triggws, faithful (OHG. triuwi, ON. tryggr);
bliggwan, to beat (OHG. bliuwan); *glaggwus, exact (OHG.
glauwêr, ON. glǫggr); skuggwa, mirror (ON. skyggja; cp. Goth.
skawjan).
Note. Concerning the ggw of the words givn under (2)
and the analogous ddj (§ 73, n. 1), cp. Beitr., IX, 545;
Göttinger Nachrichten, 1885, No. 6; Brgm., I, 157;
Scherer, 'Kleinere Schriften', I, p. XII et seq.—Concerning
the East-Gothic names Triggua, Trigguilla, s. Wrede,
'Ostg.', 78 et seq.

3. Dentals.
t
§ 69. Gothic t corresponds to Greek τ, and stands frequently both
initially and medially. E. g. (a) i n i t i a l l y: tunþus, tooth; triu, tree;
tuggô, tung; tagr, tear; taíhun, ten; twai, two; tamjan, to tame;
trauan, to trust. st: steigan, to mount. (b) m e d i a l l y: watô,
water; haírtô, hart; baitrs, bitter; itan, to eat; giutan, to pour;
sitan, to sit; witan, to know.
Final t remains unchanged; as, wait, I know; at, at; wit, we two.
Note 1. t is dubld in atta, father; skatts, muney.
Note 2. t before t in derivativ and inflected words becums
s (§ 81); as, ushaista, very poor (cp. haitan);
blôstreis, wurshipper (cp. blôtan, to wurship); 2nd pers.
sg. prt. waist (1st wait), haíhaist (inf. haitan, to be
calld); weak prt. gamôsta (1st pers. gamôt); kaupasta
(inf. kaupatjan, to cuf); wissa (< wista, 1st wait).
§ 70. Gothic þ corresponds to Gr. θ (as, Þômas, Θωμᾶς; Naþan,
Ναθάν); its sound-value was that of a voiceless dental spirant = the
NE. surd th in thin. Also the Greek θ denoted at that time, as it stil
does in New Greek, a similar sound.
Note 1. Greek authors represent the Goth. þ by θ; as,
Θευδέριχος. Latin writers express Goth. þ mostly by th;
as, Theodoricus, Theodomirus, but also often by t. Cp.
Wrede, 'Wand.', 104; 'Ostg.', 170 et seq.—In like manner
sum later prints hav th for þ (s. § 1, n. 3).
Note 2. Latin authors often uze d beside th for medial þ in
proper nouns, from which a later softening may be inferd.

Cp. Wrede, 'Ostg.', 171.
Note 3. Concerning the sound-value of Germanic-Goth. þ,
cp. IF. 4, 341 et seq.; for the relation between Goth. þ
and Gr. θ, s. Wimmer, 'Die Runenschrift', 268.
§ 71. þ in Gothic words is very frequent. E. g. (a) i n i t i a l l y:
þulan, to suffer; þanjan, to strech; ga-þaírsan, to wither;
þaúrsus, witherd; þaúrstei, thirst; þata (prn.), that; þu, thou;
þreis, three; þliuhan, flee; ga-þláihan, to cumfort, console;
þwahan, to wash. (b) m e d i a l l y: brôþar, brother; tunþus,
tooth; wiþrus, lam; fraþi, n., understanding; fraþjan, to
understand; anþar, other; ƕaþar, 'uter'; waírþan, to becum;
qiþan, to say. (c) Also f i n a l þ remains unchanged; as, þiuþ, n.,
good (gen. þiuþis); qaþ, prt. of qiþan; aiþs, acc. aiþ, oath.
Note 1. þþ occurs in aiþþau, or (§ 20), and, by
assimilation, for h-þ: niþþan, etc.; s. § 62, n. 3.
Note 2. þ finally and before the s of the nom. very often
stands for d, and must be kept apart from the þ mentiond
under (c) which remain þ m e d i a l l y also; s. § 74.
Note 3. þ becums s before t (§ 81); e. g., 2nd pers. sg.
prt. qast (inf. qiþan), warst (inf. waírþan), snaist (inf.
sneiþan, to cut).
Note 4. d stands for medial þ in weitwôdida, testimony;
Jo. III, 32.
d
§ 72. Goth. d corresponds to Greek δ. The New Greek pronunciation
of δ is that of a soft (voiced) dental spirant (ð = NE. th in thou).
Gothic d, at least medially after a vowel, likewise had the sound-

value of this spirant. But d initially and medially after n, r, l, z, has
the value of a soft (voiced) stop.
§ 73. Examples of d: (a) i n i t i a l l y: daúr, n., door, gate; daúhtar,
daughter; dal, dale, valley; dauns, odor; daddjan, to suckl; ga-
daúrsan, to dare; driusan, to fall; dwals, foolish. (b) m e d i a l l y:
sidus, custom; wadi, n., wager; midjis, 'medius'; widuwô,
widow; biudan, to offer; bindan, to bind; haírda, herd; waldan,
to rule; mizdô, reward; fadar, father; frôdei, understanding (cp.
frôþs, frôdis, intelligent); fidwôr, four; þridja, 'tertius'; þiuda,
peple; -ida, as in auþida, desert; gahugds, mind; gards, house
(yard); hardus, hard; hund, hundred; and, on, in; alds, age (cp.
alþeis, old), kalds, cold; gazds, sting.
Note. In Gothic words dd is found only in waddjus, wall
(ON. veggr); daddjan, to suckl; twaddjê (gen. of twai,
2; ON. tweggja); iddja, I went; hense always in the
combination ddj.—Cp. § 68, n. 1; and Brgm., I, 127.
§ 74. Finally and before the s of the nominativ d remains only after
a consonant; e. g., hund, nimand (3d pers. pl. prs.), gards, alds,
gazds, gahugds. But postvocalic d becuming final (and before the
s of the nominativ) is changed into þ, because þ denotes the hard
sound corresponding to d. Such eufonic þs from medial ds
constitute the greater number of the Gothic final þs, the smaller
number ar original (also medial) þs. (§ 71, n. 2). E. g.
staþs, stadis, place (but *staþs, staþis, shore); haubiþ,
haubidis, hed; liuhaþ, liuhadis, light; frôþs, frôdis, wise; gôþs,
gôdis, good; báuþ, prt. of biudan; bidjan, to pray, prt. baþ; —all
pps. of wvs.; as, nasiþs, nasidis; salbôþs, salbôdis; furthermore
all final þs in verbal inflection (3d pers. sg., 2nd pl.); as, nimiþ,
nêmuþ, nêmeiþ,—but with enclitic -uh: nimiduh, nêmuduh,
nêmeiduh; —advs. like ƕaþ, whither (cp. § 213); prep. miþ, with.
Note 1. The change of final d into þ does not occur in all
cases in our manuscripts. This exception does not concern
the original text of Wulfila, but is only a deviation from the

normal state of orthografy, which is proved by the fact
that final d occurs exceedingly often only in Lu., especially
in the first ten chapters, not quite rarely also in Jo., more
rarely in the other books. Exampls from the sixth chapter
of Lu. ar: samalaud (34), gôds (35. 43), gôd (43),
mitads (38), ptc. gamanwids (40), gasulid, and
especially frequently verbal forms: taujid (2),
ussuggwud (3), faginôd, laikid (23), habaid (24),
usbaírid (45), etc.—Sinse yunger forms of speech ar a
characteristic feature of the gospel of Lu. (§ 221, 1), they
might be regarded as representativs of a later
development of the Goth. language, introduced into our
text by sum writers (for similar cases in East-Gothic
names, s. Wrede, 'Ostg.', 171). Others explain the forms
with final d as being due to their original position before
words beginning with a vowel according to which the
forms nimiþ and nimid would be 'dublets'
('satzdubletten').—Cp. also Kock, Zs. fda., 26, 226 et seq.,
who shows that these ds for þs ar most frequent after
unaccented vowels (as in mitads), but after an accented
vowel only when the latter is long or a difthong, rarely
after a short accented vowel (as in mid; Lu. VII, 11.)
Note 2. Sinse the final þ has by all means to be regarded
as the regular one, it must also be employd in words of
which only forms with medial d occur: biuþs, biudis,
table; rauþs, red; usdauþs, zelous; gamaiþs, maimd;
môþs, anger; knôþs, stock, race. Hense also garaiþs,
redy; unlêds, poor, which, beside the forms with medial
b, hav onse each the final forms garaid and unlêds,
respectivly. But both forms occur in Lu.
With final d o n l y ar repeatedly found: weitwôds,
witness, acc. weitwôd; twice gariuds (gariud),
honorabl; only o n e final form with d (but none with þ)
occurs in braids, broad; dêds, deed; wôds, mad,
possest; grids, step, grade; skaískaid (prt. of skaidan).

The normal forms would be dêþs, wôþs, etc., for the
forms with d insted of þ ar hardly due to anything else
but unfavorabl transmission.
Note 3. The occurrence of this final þ for thematic d must
not be confounded with that of þ in words that hav also
medial þ beside d in other words from the same root; as,
frôd- (nom. frôþs), prudent; frôdei, prudence; but
fraþi, understanding, fraþjan, to understand; sad-
(nom. saþs), satisfied, but ga-sôþjan, to satisfy; sinþs,
a going, way, but sandjan, to send; alds, age, but
alþeis, old. Cp. § 79, n. 2.
Note 4. þ is seldom found where medial d is expected; as,
guþa (for guda); Gal. IV, 8; unfrôþans; Gal. III, 3.
§ 75. The d of the weak preterit, which stands mostly after vowels
(nasida, habaida), remains intact after l and n (skulda, munda),
while after s, h, f it becums t: kaupasta, môsta, daúrsta, þâhta,
brâhta, þûhta, brûhta, waúrhta, baúhta, ôhta, mahta, áihta,
þaúrfta; it is changed into þ in kunþa; ss is assimilated from st in
wissa.
Conform to this rule ar the respectiv ptcs. nasiþs, habaiþs,
skulds, munds, but waúrhts, baúhts, mahts, binaúhts,
þaúrfts, kunþs. Cp. § 187, n. 1; § 197 et seq.; §§ 208. 209.
Note. d becums s before the t of the 2nd pers. prt. (§ 81):
baust (1st bauþ, inf. biudan); so, also, before
consonants in derivativ words; as, gilstr, tax, tribute (<
gildan); usbeisns, expectation (< usbeidan, to abide,
expect).
s

§ 76. s is a hard (voiceless) dental spirant and corresponds to Gr. σ.
s occurs very often in Gothic words, especially initially. E. g.
(a) i n i t i a l l y: sunus, sun; sitan, to sit; skadus, shade;
speiwan, to spit; standan, to stand; straujan, to strew; slêpan,
to sleep; smals, small; snutrs, wise; swaíhra, father-in-law.
(b) m e d i a l l y: kiusan, to choose; wisan, to be; wasjan, to
clothe; þûsundi, thousand; gasts, guest; fisks, fish; asneis, hired
man; hansa, host; aúhsa, ox; þaúrsus, witherd.
(c) Also f i n a l s remains unchanged; as, gras, grass; mês, table;
was (prt. of wisan), was; hals, neck.
Note 1. ss occurs frequently; e. g., ƕassei, sharpness;
qiss, speech; wissa (prt. of witan); suff. -assus
(þiudinassus, kingdom, etc.).
Note 2. Final s stands in most cases for medial z,
especially the final inflectional s. Cp. § 78; dropping of the
s of the nominativ in § 78, n. 2.
Note 3. For s from t, þ, d, before consonants (t), s. § 69,
n. 2; § 71, n. 3; § 75, n. 1.
Note 4. Concerning the fonetic distinction between the
spirants s and þ, cp. IF., 342.
§ 77. The sign z corresponds in Greek words to ζ; as, Zaíbaídaius,
Ζεβεδαῖος; azymus, ἄζυμος. Its sound, like that of the Gr. ζ both at
Wulfila's time and in New Greek, was the corresponding soft sound
of s, hense a voiced dental spirant (E. z).
§ 78. (a) In Goth. words z occurs never i n i t i a l l y.
(b) M e d i a l z is frequent. But final z becums s, the corresponding
hard sound (cp. § 79). E. g.
azêts, easy; hazjan, to praise; hazeins, praise; dius, gen. diuzis,
animal; hatis, gen. hatizis, hatred; hatizôn, to be angry; huzd,
trezure; gazds, sting; mizdô, reward; azgô, ashes; marzjan, to
offend; talzjan, to teach; —comparativs: maiza, 'major'; frôdôza,

alþiza, etc.; —pronominal forms; as, izwara, þizôs, þizê,
blindaizôs; 2nd pers. sing. midl: haitaza.
(c) Most of the Gothic final ss represent z, especially the inflectional
s; this reappears as z when it becums medial by an enclitic addition,
for exampl, the s of the nom. ƕas, who?, but ƕazuh; is, he, but
izei, who; us, out, but uzuh, uzu; dis- (as in dizuhþansat; Mk.
XVI, 8); þôs, nom. pl. f., but þôzuh; weis, we; weizuh; wileis,
2nd pers. sg., but wileizu; advs.: mais (compar. maiza), more;
áiris, erlier (compar. áiriza), etc.
Note 1. z is but rarely employd for final s: minz, less; II.
Cor. XII, 15 (Codex B), for mins elsewhere; riqiz (4
times), darkness, beside riqis, gen. riqizis; aiz, brass,
muney (only Mk. VI, 8); mimz, flesh; I. Cor. VIII, 13.—For
a different view of final s for z, s. Wilmanns, Dtsch.
Gramm., I, p. 86.
Note 2. The s (z) of the nom. sg. is dropt (1) after s (ss,
z): drus, m., gen. drusis, fall; swês, gen. swêsis, adj.,
one's own; laus, lausis, loose; us-stass, f., gen.
usstassais, resurrection; (2) after r immediately
preceded by a short vowel: waír, waíris, man; baúr,
sun; kaisar, Cæsar; anþar, other; unsar, our; but s
remains unchanged after a long syllabl: akrs, field; hôrs,
whoremonger; skeirs, clear; swêrs, honord; gáurs,
sorrowful. An exception is the onse occurring nom. stiur,
steer, calf. Cp. Brgm., I, 516; II, 531; Wrede, 'Ostg.', 177
et seq.—At a later stage of development, especially in
East-Gothic, the loss of the nominativ-s occurs more
extensivly. So alredy in the Documents (Neap. Doc.:
Gudilub, Ufitahari); cp. Wrede, loc. cit.
Note 3. z and s interchange in the prt. of slêpan;
saíslêp; Mt. VIII, 24. Lu. VIII, 23. I. Thess. IV, 14;
saízlêp; Jo. XI, 11. I. Cor. XV, 6; —in the neuters in -is
(gen. agisis and gen. hatizis); s. 94, n. 5.

Note 4. The z (s. c, abuv) of the prep. us is in compounds
assimilated to a following r (cp. § 24, n. 2); e. g., urruns,
a running out; urreisan, to (a)rise; urrûmnan (beside
usrûmnan, in Codex B, II. Cor. VI, 11), to expand; onse
ur for the prep. us: ur riqiza; II. Cor. IV, 6.—us remains
unchanged before other sounds in cpds.; as, usagjan, to
frighten; usbeidan, to abide, expect (cp. § 56, n. 2). z
for s before a vowel appears only in uzôn (prt. of
*usanan, to expire); Mk. XV, 37. 39; and in uzêtin (dat.
of *usêta, manger); Lu. II, 7. 12. 16.
Note 5. When us is affixt to a word beginning with st,
only one s is sumtimes writn: ustaig (prt. of us-
steigan); Mk. III, 13; ustôþ; Lu. VIII, 55. X, 25;
ustandiþ (prt. and prs. of us-standan); Mk. X, 34;
ustassai (nom. usstass); Lu. XIV, 14.—Cp.
twistandans (in B = twis-standans in A); II. Cor. II,
13; diskritnan (for dis-skritnan); Mt. XXVII, 51; there
is no analogon for sp.
APPENDIX.
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE CONSONANTS.
§ 79. The Gothic soft spirants, b, d, z, finally and before the s of the
nom. (cp. §§ 56. 74. 78) ar changed into the corresponding hard
sounds, f, þ, s, while the fourth soft spirant, medial g, remains
unchanged when final (§ 66; § 65, n. 2).
Note 1. Also the final b, d, z hav sumtimes remaind
unchanged, i. e. z rarely (§ 78, n. 1), but b and d
especially often in certain parts where also other forms
show a later stage of development. Cp. § 56, n. 1; § 74,
n. 1, and Zs. fda., 25, 226 et seq.
Note 2. Interchange between f and b, þ and d, h and g, s
and z, which had taken place in proethnic Germanic

according to definit laws and is better preservd in other
Germanic languages ('Grammatical Change'; s. ahd. gr., §
100 et seq.), occurs in Gothic only in derivativ words; cp.
g-h, § 66, n. 1; d-þ, § 74, n. 3; (z—s, § 78, n. 3); and
traces of it ar seen in the inflection of the verbs þarf (§
56, n. 3), áih (§ 203, n. 1).
§ 80. Gemination of the Gothic liquids and nasals, l, m, n, r, is
frequent; also ss and a few instances of kk (§ 58, n. 1), tt (§ 69, n.
1), þþ (§ 71, n. 1), dd (§ 73, n. 1); —the more frequent exampls of
gg (§§ 67. 68) ar in part of another kind.
The geminated consonants remain unchanged when final and before
the s of the nominativ: skatts, full, kann, rann, wamm, gawiss;
likewise before j (as in fulljan, skattja, kannjan, etc.), but ar as a
rule simplified before other consonants: kant, kunþa (cp. kann);
rant, 2nd pers. sg. prt., ur-runs, m., a running out (cp. rinnan);
swumfsl, pond (cp. *swimman); —but uzually fullnan, only a
few times fulnan.
Note. Sum instances of gemination as wel as of simplified
gemination in the MSS. ar merely orthografic errors; as,
allh for alh; Lu. II, 46; wisêdun (s for ss); inbranjada
(nj for nnj); Jo. XV, 6; swam for swamm; Mk. XV, 36.—
Such errors ar mostly corrected by the editors. Cp.
Bernhardt, 'Vulfila', p. LVII.
§ 81. The changes of consonants before dentals may, as far as the
Gothic is concernd, be embraced in the following rule:
Before the dentals, d, þ, t, all labial stops and spirants ar changed
into f, all gutturals into h, all dentals into s, the second dental
appearing always as t. E. g.
skapjan, gaskafts (§ 51, n. 2); þaúrban (*þaúrbda), þaúrfta;
giban, gifts (§ 56, n. 4); —siuks, saúhts; þagkjan, þâhta (§ 58,
n. 2); magan, mahta (§ 66, n. 1); —wait, waist (§ 69, n. 2);
waírþan, warst (§ 71, n. 3); biudan, baust (§ 75, n. 1).

Note 1. Exceptions ar magt (2nd pers. sg.; 1st mag, §
201) and gahugds, mind.
Note 2. st often becums ss by assimilation; as, wissa,
prt. of witan (§ 76, n. 1). Cp. Beitr., 7, 171 et seq.; 9, 150
et seq.; IF., 4, 341 et seq.
Note 3. The rule givn abuv from a practical standpoint of
the Gothic grammar must be formulated differently from a
comparativ-historical standpoint, because the discust
sound-shiftings hav not originated in the Gothic language,
but ar reflections of proethnic Germanic and Indo-
Germanic relations of sounds. S. Brgm., I, 381 et seq.;
403 et seq.
§ 82. Assimilations occur only in combination with h (s. § 62, n. 3)
and us (§ 78, n. 4).

CHAP. I. DECLENSION OF
SUBSTANTIVS.
GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
(a) On declension in general.
§ 83. The Gothic declension, like that of the remaining Old-Germanic
dialects, comprises three genders: the m a s c u l i n, n e u t e r and
f e m i n i n.
Note 1. The neuter of all declensions resembls in form
very closely the masculin; a distinction occurs in the nom.
and acc. sg. and pl. only.
Note 2. A distinction of gender is wanting only with the
personal prn. of the 1st and 2nd persons, with the reflexiv
prn. (§ 150), and with the numeral adjectivs 4-19 (§ 141).
§ 84. The Goth. declension has t w o numbers: s i n g u l a r and
p l u r a l.
Note. The d u a l which originally existed in all Indg.
languages, is preservd in the Goth. decl. in the 1st and
2nd pers. of the personal prn. only (§ 150).
§ 85. The Goth. declension has four complete cases: n o m i n a t i v,
g e n i t i v, d a t i v, a c c u s a t i v. The v o c a t i v is mostly identical
with the nominativ, only in the singular of sum classes of declension
the vocativ is different from the nominativ, but then it is always
identical with the accusativ.

Note. The Goth. dativ represents several Indg. cases
(dativ, locativ, ablativ, instrumental). Relics of the neuter
instrumental ar stil present in the pronominal declension:
þê (§ 153), ƕê (§ 159).
(b) On the declension of substantivs.
§ 86. The declension of substantivs in Gothic is divided into a vocalic
and a consonantal declension, according as the stems of the
substantivs end in a vowel or a consonant.
Note. The original form of the stem is in part
unrecognizabl in the Gothic language, because the stem
has blended with the endings, final vowels hav been lost,
and the like, so that the division into a vocalic and a
consonantal declension appears correct only in the light of
the Comparativ Indo-Germanic Grammar, and but with
reference to this it must be retaind. Such a division would
never hav been made from an especially Gothic-Germanic
standpoint.
§ 87. Of the c o n s o n a n t a l stems in Gothic the n-stems (i. e. the
stems in -an, -ôn, -ein), ar very numerous, while of other
consonantal declensions but a few remains ar preservd (§ 114 et
seq.). Sinse the time of Jac. Grimm the n-declension has also been
calld W e a k D e c l e n s i o n.
§ 88. There ar four classes of the v o c a l i c declension: stems in a,
ô, i, u. Accordingly, we distinguish them as a-, ô-, i-, and u-
declensions. The stem-characteristics ar stil clearly seen in all classes
in the dat. and acc. pl.; e. g., dagam, dagans; — gibôm, gibôs;
— gastim, gastins; — sunum, sununs. Sinse the time of Jacob
Grimm the vocalic declension has also been calld S t r o n g
D e c l e n s i o n.

Note 1. Of the four vocalic declensions the a- and ô-
declensions ar closely connected, the a-declension
containing only masculins and neuters (dags, waúrd),
the ô-declension the corresponding feminins. Both classes
ar therefore uzually givn as one, the a-declension.
Note 2. The Gothic a-declension corresponds to the
second or o-declension in Greek and Latin (Gr. m. -ος, n.
-ον; Lt. -us, -um), the Goth. ô-declension corresponds to
the first or ā-declension in Gr. and Lt. Now sinse
Comparativ Grammar teaches us that the Græco-Lt.
vowels ar the more original ones, and that onse also the
Germanic stems of the corresponding masculine and
neuters must hav ended in o and those of the feminins in
â, we often meet in Germanic Grammar with the term o-
declension for the masculins and neuters, and with the
term â-declension for the feminins.
(c) On the nominal composition.
§ 88a. Substantivs (and adjectivs) as the first parts of compounds
end as a rule in a vowel, the connecting vowel of the components
(or composition-vowel), which in the case of the vocalic stems is
oftenest identical with the stem-vowel. Exampls: a-decl.: figgra-
gulþ, hunsla-staþs, himina-kunds, fulla-tôjis; —i-decl.: gasti-
gôþs, naudi-bandi; —u-decl.: fôtu-baúrd, hardu-haírtei, filu-
waúrdei.
But the connecting vowel of the o-stems is always -a; as, aírþa-
kunds, hleiþra-stakeins; the -ja of ja-stems persists when the
stem is a short syllabl, but it becums i when the stem is long (cp. §
44); as, wadja-bôkôs, alja-kuns; arbi-numja, aglaiti-waúrdei;
in like manner þûsundi-faþs, < stem in -jô-, nom. þûsundi (§
145).

The n-stems hav simpl a insted of the thematic ending -an, -ôn; as,
guma-kunds, fruma-baúr, wilja-halþei, qina-kunds, auga-
daúrô; but mari-saiws (cp. Beitr., 8, 410).
Note 1. The composition-vowel was often dropt in Gothic,
especially that of the a-stems; e. g., of a-stems: wein-
drugkja (but weina-triu, weina-basi, etc.), gud-hûs,
guþ-blôstreis (but guda-faúrhts, guda-laus, guþa-
skaunei), laus-qiþrs, laus-handus (but lausa-
waúrds), þiudan-gardi, háuh-þûhts, ain-falþs, þiu-
magus (for þiwa-, § 91, n. 3); —of ja-stems: niuklahs
(but niuja-satiþs), frei-hals, aglait-gastalds (but
aglaiti-waúrdei); —of i-stems: brûþ-faþs, þut-haúrn
(Beitr., 8, 411), twalib-wintrus (§ 141).
Note 2. Sum words show evasions of the composition-
vowel: þiuþi-qiss (for þiuþa-); I. Cor. X, 16 (in Cod. A);
anda-laus (for andja-); I. Tim. I, 4 (in A, but andi-laus
in B); hrainja-haírts (for hraini-); Mt. V, 8; garda- in
cpds. seems to be the normal form beside the stem
gardi- (s. § 101): garda-waldands; Mt. X, 25. Lu. XIV,
21; miþgarda-waddjus; Eph. II, 14 (in B, but
midgardi-w. in A); Beitr., 8, 432. Cp. also brôþra-lubô;
Rom. XII, 10 (in A, but brôþru-lubô; I. Thess. IV, 9, in
B).—The evasions occur mostly in Codex A and seem to be
yunger East-Gothic forms; cp. the names in the
Documents (e. g., Gudi-lub, in Ar. Doc.; Sunjai-friþas,
in Neap. Doc.), and Wrede, 'Ostg.', 184.
Note 3. Beside the other consonantal stems there occur:
brôþru-lubô (§ 114); cp. the preceding note; baúrgs-
waddjus, a genitiv-composition (§ 116); nahta-mats (§
116); beside mann- (§ 117) the stem mana- is found:
mana-sêþs, mana-maúrþrja, unmana-riggws; and
(probably according to note 1) man-leika.—sigis-laun
and þruts-fill, which belong to old s-stems (s. § 94, n. 5.

—Leo Meyer, Got. Spr., p. 174), may (by loss of a,
according to note 1) also refer to a-stems.
Note 4. For more about the cpds. in Gothic, s. Beitr., 8,
371-460; Brgm., II, 73 et seq.; Wrede, 'Ostg.', 183 et seq.
A. VOCALIC (STRONG) DECLENSION.
1. (a) A-Declension.
§ 89. The Gothic a-declension contains only masculins and neuters.
We distinguish between pure a-stems and ja-stems.
Note. The wa-stems in Gothic differ but very litl from the
pure a-stems. Their number is very small (§ 91, n. 3; §
93; § 94, n. 1).
Masculins.
§ 90. Paradims of the masculins. (a) Pure a-stems: dags, day (< an
erlier *dagaz, proethnic Germanic *dago-z, § 88, n. 2); hlaifs, (loaf
of) bred (proethnic Germanic *hlaibo-z). (b) ja-stems: haírdeis,
herdsman (proethnic Germanic *herdio-z); harjis, army (proethnic
Germanic *hario-z).

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!
ebookultra.com

Method in Metaphysics 1st Edition Andrew Beards

More Related Content

Similar to Method in Metaphysics 1st Edition Andrew Beards (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Method in Metaphysics 1st Edition Andrew Beards