Table Of ContentNEW YORK UNIVERSITY
OTTENDORFER MEMORIAL SERIES
OF GERMANIC MONOGRAPHS
NO. 30
GOTHIC ETYM O LO GICAL STUDIES
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
OTTENDORFER MEMORIAL SERIES
OF GERMANIC MONOGRAPHS
NO. 30
G O T H I C
E T Y M O L O G I C A L S T U D I E S
By
ROBERT A. FOWKES
NEW YORK
1949
The author wishes to express his thanks to the
Ottendorfer Memorial Fellowship Committee,
both for giving him the opportunity to spend a
year of study abroad and for granting a subsidy
towards the publication of this monograph. Special
thanks are due Professor Henry Brennecke, Secre
tary of the Committee, for his constant assistance
and friendly advice.
R. A. F.
New York University
March, 1949.
CONTENTS
Gothic Etymological Studies . . . . 1
Appendix . . . . . . . 61
Bibliography . . . . . . 64
Notes . . . . . . . 68
Index Verborum . . . . . . 74
GOTHIC ETYMOLOGICAL STUDIES
The most comprehensive presentation of the etymology of the
Gothic vocabulary is contained, asis well known, in Sigmund Feist’ s
Verģleichendes VOrterbuch der ģotischen Sprache (3rd ed., Leyden,
1939 ). In this work there is found a usually careful sifting of
tenable and untenable etymologies, with good bibliographical refer
ences for sources and works involved. In addition to the vocabulary
of the Gothic Bible itself, Feist considers the Skeireins, the
calendar, the signatures to the papyrus documents of Naples and
Arezzo, the Gothic fragments in the Alcuin manuscript in the Vienna
Library, the limited words in Gothic runic inscriptions, the scant
material in Latin texts, and also the Crimean Gothic words known
from Busbecq's famous list.
As is inevitably true of any language, a certain portion of the
vocabulary of Gothic has never been satisfactorily explained ety
mologically. Feist designates some 245 words as belonging to this
category. (For the sake of convenience, this list is given in the
appendix.) The object of the present dissertation is to inspect
these words and, employing the methods of comparative linguistics,
to attempt to discover whether some portion of them may, after all,
have cognates in other Indo-European languages. When an actual Indo-
European base, already recognized, can be found, it will be cited.
When cognates can be found in other Indo-European language groups,
even though an ultimate Indo-European base may not be demonstrable,
those cognates will be given, on the assumption that any etymologi
cal clarification, phonologically and semantically supported, is
worth being noted and that "partial equations" are preferable to
none at all. This is frequently the procedure of Feist himself. In
one or two instances it may seem legitimate, on the basis of new
or hitherto unconsidered linguistic evidence, to posit a new Indo-
European base. In others, it may be shown that several Indo-European
bases previously regarded as distinct (by Walde-Pokorny1 and similar
authorities) are in reality one and the same in origin. In still
other cases, etymologies already existing in scholarly literature
but apparently overlooked by Feist (e.g., articles in American jour
nals) will be cited. Occasionally, additional support will be ad
duced for etymologies previously advanced but rejected by Feist and
others. Finally, etymological studies published since the appearance
2 GOTHIC ETYMOLOGICAL STUDIES
of Feist's work will be taken into account, to the extent that they
are available.
It is obviously to be expected that a certain portion of the Goth
ic vocabulary will always remain etymologically unexplained, for
the sources from which the vocabulary of any language is derived
can never be known in their entirety. Borrowings from tongues now
extinct and even unknown must inevitably have occurred. Some were
doubtless borrowed into Germanic, others into Gothic itself. Any
etymological study that resulted in one hundred percent clarifica
tion would be suspect, for the scientific means of achieving such
perfection do not exist. It is not the purpose of this dissertation
to list hypothetical reconstructions, Germanic or Indo-European,
for those Gothic words whose etymology continues to defy analysis,
although such reconstruction constituted, of necessity, part of the
initial spade work of the investigation. It is also not within the
scope of the present study to attempt to find possible non-Indo-
European cognates for the hitherto unexplained words, desirable as
such procedure may be, for this lies beyond the competence of the
writer. It is reasonable to expect that some light could still be
shed on the problem by specialists in Finno-Ugric, for example, who
were also well-versed in Germanic.
The following section of the thesis includes newly proposed ety
mologies and etymologies reinstated, despite rejection by Feist and
others, justification for that reinstatement being given in the
form of new or neglected evidence in support of their validity.
1. af-atkan 'deny'
This verb occurs as the equivalent of Gk. άρνεΐσθαι 'deny' (John
18.25, 27, Mark 14.68) and of Gk. άρνεΐσθαι τινα 'to deny someone'
(Matth. 10.33, Luke 9.23, II Tim. 2.12, 13 et passim).2 1 An OHG cog
nate is seen in the verb in-eih(h)an, which is equated with in-
sačēn in the OIIG glosses; there is also an ŒIG verb eihhon 'vindi-
care, zusprechen.' af-aikan evidently derives its meaning from the
sense of 'ab-sagen.' There is a semantic parallel for this in Goth.
af-qipan 'renounce.'3
After designating the verb as lacking certain etymological ex
planation, Feist quotes several previous attempts to find an etymol
ogy. A. Bezzenberger (ZfdPh. 5*229-230 [1874]) and H. Osthoff (PBB
13*395-96 [1888]), e.g., assigned to the word a primary meaning
'shake off,' citing Skt. êjati 'moves,' άρ-ejate 'drives away from
