by John Hemingway (August 2024)
Part 3 - Etymology of Gothic ataugjan
At first, Aramaic ḥwy (hawway) ‘to show, to manifest, to appear’ seems the most unlikely origin for one particular Gothic word. Yet, the Syriac and Gothic lexicons below demonstrate an interesting resemblance between the definitions for ḥwy and augjan.As the first paper in a series of three papers noted a similar Syriac connection to Gothic idiomatic meanings, the Syriac dictionary is referenced below instead of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon [1]:
A Compendious Syriac Dictionary
ḥwy Pa``el (form of the verb)
to show, make manifest, manifest; to declare, demonstrate; to show oneself, appear
A Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language
augjan to show
at-augjan 1) to put before the eyes, show; 2) to appear
The lexical correspondence between the Syriac and Gothic words is curious despite the glaring dissimilarity in form.
Semitic Origins: ḥwy
The coincidence in meaning between hawway and augjan warrants an exploration of what sound changes could have caused ḥwy to transmute to augjan. Since Semitic vocabulary is traditionally formed from consonant roots, the word root ḥwy (consisting of consonants heth, waw, and yod) will be examined on a consonant by consonant basis.
Heth. Given that Semitic words always begin with a consonant and the fact that augjan begins with a vowel suggests that heth once occupied the initial position. This initial consonant is a Semitic emphatic. In Aramaic, this sound gradually ceased to be pronounced after the first century CE. O’Leary writes, “In later forms the change of ח to ע or א i.e. loss of aspiration, is frequent as in Syriac ܥܦܩ = Hebrew חבק “embrace”” [2]. In the Greek and Latin texts, it lost its consonant value [3] and as a result, it sometimes begins with the vowel /a/ in the transliterations [4].
Waw. After the initial heth was dropped, waw would find itself at the beginning of the word. However, Hebrew words do not begin with the consonant waw. A prosthetic aleph (‘)would likely have replaced heth in order to maintain the word root according to Semitic norm of trilateral consonant form. The guttural aleph would be lost as it was unpronounceable by non-Semitic speakers.
In Aramaic and Hebrew, ḥwy has different meanings. In Hebrew, it refers to ‘Hivvite,’ but in Aramaic, it means ‘to show,’ whereas ḥywy means ‘Hivvite' [5]. Greeks transliterated the Hebrew word חוִּי (ḥiwwī ) ‘Hivvite’ to Εὑαῖος (Heuaíos) [6]. This transliteration shows the absence of the consonant waw. Khan remarks, “The pre-Masoretic transcriptions into Greek and Latin, however, reflect a pronunciation of the consonantal vav as a bilabial [w]. In Greek, this consonant is represented by ου or υ [emphasis added] and in Latin by u” [7. How waw was pronounced in Greek and Latin is illuminating when it involved the borrowing of a Semitic homonym whose form is identical to that of ḥwy.
In Gothic, augjan appears to have the diphthong /au/, but this is misleading. It actually consists of a single vowel. Vennemann points out that /au/ is used for Greek omicron (short /o/) in foreign loan words [8]. Because the ancient Greek alphabet has two different letters for short /o/ and long /o/, Gothic renders the former as /au/.Since this vowel is short, augjan is a germinable word, in which the medial /g/ is doubled in pronunciation. The Gothic insertion of /j/ indicates the gemination of the medial consonant in pronunciation as illustrated by baugjan and hausjan [9].
Before the pronunciation of heth was lost, ḥwy was in the Pa``el form that required the doubling of a medial consonant to convey an intensive meaning. When the prosthetic aleph succeeding heth disappeared in a non-Semitic speaking area, the medial consonant waw became the initial consonant and yod became the second one in the shortened word. Given the Semitic aversion to initial waw in words on one hand, and that Gothic augjan begins with the short vowel /o/ on the other hand, waw would have likely become a vowel in transition [10]. In fact, it often substituted as a mater lectionis for the Aramaic and Hebrew vowels /o/ and /u/.
Yod. The shift of yod to gimel is not recognized as an attested sound shift in many Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic textbooks. Yet, there are indications that yod,indeed, became /g/,particularly when it was contained in a word passed from one language to another. For example, Kantor notes how Trajan’s name in Greek is spelled with a gimel rather than a yod in the Jerusalem Talmud [11]. The Greek spelling of Trajan is Traïanós (Τραϊανός; Latin Traianus), but Hebrew approximated Greek /ϊ/as a gimel. Another example of the etymological shift of /y/ to /g/is Aramaic dyw‘black ink’ which compares approximately with OE deag ‘hue, tinge, dye.’ As ink is also a dye, the shift of /y/ > /g/ suggests the Semitic origin of deag, the predecessor of dye [12].
Blodgett cites jahab'to give, hand over, place, deliver’ as the origin of Gothic geben,Old English gefa, and Old Norse giban (in which case he transliterates yod as /j/)[13]. Further,he points to jalal ‘lament, wail’ as another example of an apparent Semitic origin [14]. Compare it with OE giellan; gylian, gyllan‘to yell, sound, shout’ and ME goulen ‘to cry out, yell, howl, wail’ and ME youlen‘to make a loud cry because of grief, pain, rage, etc., cry out, wail’ [15]. As linguists generally do not hold that many Germanic words are of Semitic in origin, Blodgett’s work provides helpful insights into the Semitic to Germanic shift of yod to /g/.
The origin of eyeis often said to trace to BH `ayin. Passing into Germanic, this word would drop guttural ayin (`) in the initial position,but it would also see medial yod turn into /g/and lose final nun [16]. The Germanic cognates follow the identical sound change, as found in Gothic augo, OE eage, Anglican ēge, ME eȝe,Olc auga, and Old High German ouga [17]. BH ‘iy ‘island’ bears guttural aleph in the initial position and also shows the same pattern of sound loss when it passed into OE. It corresponds well to OE îeg (îg) andiggað, iggoð, îg(e)oð ‘small island,’ and igland, taking into account that yod turned into /g/ [18]. These instances clearly warrant the need for research into this little-recognized sound shift of yod > /g/ [19].
The Gothic Context: ataugjan
Gothic augjan is found in 33 instances, of which twenty-three instances involve the prefix at-.Two meagre exceptions do not have this prefix. The remaining instances involve and-, which functions mainly as an adverb, so they are not included in this discussion. The numerical superiority of the prefix at- instances suggests that ataugjan is aprimary form, representing a particular verb class. The Gothic passages below illustrate how ataugjan is reminiscent of the usage of Pa``el (active, intensive) and Ethpa``al (passive/reflexive, intensive).
Matthew 8:4
…þuk silban ataugei gudjin jah atbair giba þoei anabauþ Moses du weitwodiþai im.
…but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
John 10:32
im Iesus: managa goda waurstwa ataugida izwis us attin meinamma…
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father…
Mark 16:14
bi spedistin þan anakumbjandam þaim ainlibim ataugida, jah idweitida ungalaubein ize jah harduhairtein…
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart…
Skeireins 3:2
þatuh þan qiþands aiwaggelista ataugida, ei so garehsns bi ina nehva andja was þairh Herodes birunain.
Saying this then, the evangelist revealed that the plan involving him was near an end through the beguiling of Herod.
As mentioned earlier, there are only two exceptions without a prefix. Both relate to augei‘to show.’ For example, John 14:8 says, “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew (augei) us the Father…’ The Gothic translator had the literary discretion here to render augei instead of its prefixed and intensive form, resulting in the rendering of the casual meaning of ‘to show’ [20]. It is indeed interesting that Balg defines ataugjan ‘to put before the eyes, to show,’ while he interprets augjan merely ‘to show’ [21].
There are two reasons to regard augjan as derived from ataugjan, not the other way around: 1) the preponderance of ataugjan in the Gothic texts indicates that ataugjan precedes augjan, therefore it is primary (whereas the basic form is commonly assumed to be primary before preverbs are attached); and 2) Aramaic does not have Pe`al (basic) form. On this basis, ataugjan is inferred to have passed into Gothic in the former Ethpa``al form with the intensive meaning of ḥwy. This would explain the preponderance of the prefixed form over the base form (augjan).
OE aetîewan ‘to show, reveal, display, disclose, manifest, (intr.) show oneself, become visible, appear’ is akin to Gothic ataugjan [22]. This word provides a valuable etymological clue as it preserves the former Semitic waw as consonant /w/. It is submitted that ḥwysustained the loss of its initial heth but kept the medial /w/ as it passed into Old English. Hall records several different vowels -eáw-, -eów-, -éw-, -iéw-, and -ýw- in his entry for aetîewan [23].Such dialectal variation suggests that pronunciation differences ensued as a result of attempts to compensate for the loss of initial heth.
Discussion
At first glance, it seems highly incredulous to attribute the origin of ataugjanto Aramaic ḥwy whose original consonants no longer existed by the time the Gothic word emerged. Yet, it can be argued that the phonological changes that the Semitic word underwent are accounted for, consonant by consonant, according to attested historical patterns of evidence.
The usage of the Gothic preverb at-reveals the distinct senses identical to the Syriac definition of ḥwy in Pa``el: ’to show, to manifest, to demonstrate, to appear.’ These meanings are Aramaic, not Biblical Hebrew (‘Hivvite’), which is of some significance because BH ḥwy became an obsolete word after Old Testament times. The traditional dating of the Gothic Bible to the fourth-century CE would be contemporary to the ascendancy of Syriac as an Eastern Middle Aramaic dialect. The apparent connection to this Semitic language is key to understanding Gothic idiomatic expressions.
As a note of interest, a Gothic passage draws attention to the unusual innovation in Gothic vocabulary formation. Matthew 26:70 says, “But he denied (languid)them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.” The base form of the word laugnjan, which denotes the opposite of augjan ‘to reveal’ [24], also means ‘hidden, secret’ (*laugus) as an adjective [25], and ‘concealment, secret’ as a noun (analaugnei) [26]. By adding the consonant /l/ at the beginning of the word, it appears that Gothic formed a new antonym [27]. Balg notes the resemblance between laugnjan and liugan ‘to lie, to tell a falsehood.’ In an indirect way, these two Gothic words appear to be related to ḥwy.
Conclusion
This paper findsthat the preverb at-is relatively consistent in its function of signalling an intensive meaning of a verb where atbairan, athahan, and ataugjan are involved. Though these Gothic words were fashioned in the widely different morphological circumstances, the enhanced meaning is apparent in the contexts of these verbs. The meaning may be solemn in one context, intensive in another context, or amplified in yet another context. This pattern of accentuating meanings definitely resembles that of the former Semitic verb-stem distinctions. The finding does not apply, though, to all the Gothic initial at- verbs (except when the verb obviously acts as a preposition), since many other Gothic verbs with the prefix at- have not been investigated [28].
In Gothic studies, if the meaning of a word is not clearly understood from its context, it is usually deemed idiomatic in meaning. This paper finds that in several instances, the meaning turns out to trace to a particular meaning in the Syriac usage. Two examples are usbar (in two distinct meanings or usages) and ataugjan,which is harmonious with the lexical senses of Syriac ḥwy. Though not discussed in this paper, afhugidafor Greek baskaino ‘to charm, bewitch one,’ provides an outstanding example. This word originates from Syriac hgy which alludes to a certain magic or paranormal aspect [29]. The Gothic translator used it to translate “Who has bewitched you?” from the Greek text.
These examples are Gothic idioms, but they trace to culturally bound usages in Syriac, which strongly suggest a recentness, rather than an antiquity of the Semitic origin in the Gothic vocabulary, because Syriac only developed during the first several centuries CE. This evidence suggests familiarity of the Syriac dialect on the part of the Gothic translators. It signals the need for further investigation to determine the extent of Syriac influence on Gothic vocabulary, as this Gothic connection to Syriac is a far cry from the long-established consensus that Gothic is of an Indo-European origin.
Ramifications
Many articles attribute the origins of some English words (not to mention some Dutch, Frisian, and Swedish words) to Hebrew in a general manner, without a specific dating or geographical reference. However, the apparent Syriac connection to Gothic removes a lot of ambiguity. Significantly, it circumscribes the origins of Gothic to a particular geographical region and pinpoints them to a narrow period of history.
Gzella writes that the Edessan dialect “turned into ‘Classic Syriac,’ a deregionalized and supradialectal written idiom chiefly employed for religious, scientific, and edifying literature and, presumably learned discourse” [30]. Classic Syriac became the regional lingua franca of the Near East, although various other forms of Aramaic were spoken [31]. Modern historians frequently present Syriac as the literary and liturgical language in the Near East Christian communities. On the other hand, Andrade quotes Photius, a Byzantine, “For just as the Osrhoenians, Syrians, Euphratesians, Palestinians, and Phoenicians speak the language of the Syrians, but their manner of speaking nonetheless bears considerable difference” [32]. Though there are many mentions of Syriac being closely associated with Christian faith communities, it is conceivable that the words of Syriac origin entered Gothic at the colloquial level.
In 224 CE, Sassanians conquered the Parthian Empire who had ruled the Near East for several centuries. Yet history is strangely quiet about the fate of the Parthians. Poirot writes, “The disappearance of the Parthians from the historical record was the most likely deliberate act perpetuated by their enemies and heirs. After the fall of the Parthian Arsacids (ca. 224 CE), their successors, the Neo-Persian Sassanids, systemically destroyed most documents and monuments dedicated to the reigns of Parthia’s former kings” [33]. The circumstances in which Parthians passed from sight were sudden and mysterious. What could have occurred during this critical juncture in history is that when Parthians lost their territory, they migrated en masse to Europe taking with them their familiarity of the Syriac language and lore. This scenario suggests that at least a part of the Gothic stock was descended from Parthians.
According to traditional belief, the Gothic Bible was composed in the middle-to-late fourth century. If one synchronizes this historical dating with a geographical location in the Near East, one finds the Sassanian Empire at the peak of power. Linguistic evidence shows that the Gothic Bible must have been written when the Gothic-speaking population had some degree of familiarity with colloquial Aramaic, indicating that their earlier residence had been in the Near East. This has a far-reaching implication.
Currently, the finding of several Gothic words with an apparent Syriac origin does not present a complete case for the Syriac connection. It does point to the need for further research. Still, the ramifications are unmistakable. The Syriac provenance amounts to the evidence of a past sojourn in the Near East, and a certain firsthand familiarity of Aramaic usage, including the verb-stem distinctions.
Endnotes
[1] Balg, Gerhard. A Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language. Milwaukee: Benton, Waldo, 1887, 35; Payne Smith, Robert. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903, 129.
[2] O’Leary, De Lacy. Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. London: Kegan Paul, 1923, 45.
[3] Sperber, Alexander. “Hebrew Based Upon Greek and Latin Transliteration.” Hebrew Union College Annual. 12 (1937), 111, 130.
[4] Ibid., 221-226.
[5] Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. ḥywy is pronounced ḥiwwāy, ḥawwāy in a geminated form.
[6] A. H. Sayce, “Hivite.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr et al., Vol. 3. Chicago: The Howard-Severance, 1915, 1402.
[7] Khan, Geoffrey. The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew. Vol. I of Description of the Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition. Cambridge: Open Books, 2020, 188.
[8] Vennemann, Theo. “The Phonology of Gothic Vowels.” Language 47 (1971) 94, cf 129.
[9] Blodgett remarks on the letter /j/ in Gothic verbs, “In Gothic, this j, written after medial consonants, may have represented the aspirated effect of the gemination.” He cites bidjan as an example, “It is possible that the j was inserted into the word immediately following the consonant in question, bidjan, to represent the aspiration and possibly also the doubling. In other words, it is possible that in Gothic this semi-vowel-consonant j was inserted after medial consonants to satisfy the aspiration and doubling requirements inherent in Gothic phonetics…” Refer to Terry M. Blodgett, “Phonological Similarities in Germanic and Hebrew,” PhD diss., The University of Utah, 1981, 51-52.
[10] The vowel /a/ tends to follow initial aleph in many Semitic words.After losing the guttural aleph in a non-Semitic speaking area, the word would now begin with initial /a/. The Jewish Encyclopedia states, “When an a-vowel precedes it [waw], the two form the diphthong "au," which in Hebrew has passed into “o””. Refer to Toy below.
Toy, Crawford H. “WAW.” In The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, edited by Isidore Singer. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1912, Vol. 12, 477.
[11] Kantor, Benjamin. The Pronunciation of New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2023, unnumbered page in the preview. Refer to the Table 7.1.1.4.V in the chapter 7.
[12] CAL. Refer to the entry dyw, dywt’. Also refer to An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (1921), 147.
[13] Blodgett, “PSIGAH,” 100.
[14] Ibid., 34
[15] Refer to A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary; Middle English Compendium. Refer to the entry youlen. Online: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary.
[16] The loss of final nun is explained as follows: In Aramaic, the masculine plural form of a noun is marked by the ending -in (Hebrew -im). Although the singular form of ayin is feminine, the masculine ending applies to ‘eyes’(Aramaic ayinin עיינין) This plural ending would be dropped in Gothic nouns of Aramaic origin, since Gothic employed its own means of marking plural forms. By analogy, the elision of the Aramaic plural ending would extend to ayin before yod changed to /g/.
[17] Balg, ACGOTGL, 35.
[18] Hall, ACA-SD, 375, 377; Bosworth cites eig ‘island.’ Bosworth, Joseph. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Edited and enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921, 245.
[19]In later Old English, guttural /g/ disappeared when it coalesced with the preceding vowel and formed a diphthong, e.g. daeg > day and weg > way. Refer to Sweet and also Gordin below.
Sweet, Henry. A History of English Sounds from the Earliest Period. Oxford: Clarendon, 1888,148, cf. 112.
Gordin, Michael D. and Joshua T. Katz. “The Walker and the Wake: Analysis of Non-Instrinc Philological Isolates.” In Pataphilology: An Irreader, edited by Gurd, Sean and Vincent van Gerven Oei. Punctum, 2018, 77-78. Online: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Pataphilology/Rm6oEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA78&printsec=frontcover.
[20] The second instance of augei is found in John 14:9. Both Greek instances of augei are in the aorist imperative active tense, as are the Greek instances of ataugei in Matthew 8:4 and Luke 5:14; 20:24.
[21] Balg, ACGOTGL, 35.
[22] Hall, ACA-SD, 37.
[23] Bosworth, AA-SD, “eíg.” An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Online, edited by Thomas Northcote Toller et al., Prague: Charles University, 2014, 245. Online: https://bosworthtoller.com/917123.
[24] Balg, ACGOTGL, 238.
[25] Ibid., 238.
[26] Regan, Brian T. Dictionary of the Biblical Gothic Language. Phoenix: Wellsprings, 1974, 9.
[27] The prefix /l/ is evocative of the Hebrew negative particle lo. This particle sometimes denotes “without,” especially when prefixed to adjectives (refer to the entry לא (2a) on page 519 in The new Brown, Driver, Briggs). This raises the question whether laugnjan represents the Gothic appropriation of Hebrew lo, given that the short vowel in lo would overlap the short vowel /au/ in augjan (/au/ being pronounced /o/ in Gothic).
Brown, Francis. The new Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979, 519.
[28] For instance, Bucsko lists 29 different verbs with the prefix at- in his Gothic proverbs dissertation. Refer to John M. Bucsko, “Preverbs and Idiomatization in Gothic,” PhD diss,, The University of Georgia, 2008, 265-67.
[29] Hemingway, John. “Evidence of the Semitic Verb Conjugation in Gothic THAGKJAN.” Hebrew Nations. Online: https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/hemingwayhgh.html.
[30] Gzella, Holger. “The Syriac language in the Context of the Semitic languages.” In The Syriac World, edited by Daniel King.London: Routledge, 2019, 207.
[31] King, Daniel, “Introduction.” In The Syriac World, 1; Debie, Muriel. “The eastern provinces of the Roman Empires in Late Antiquity.” In The Syriac World, 11.
[32] Andrade, Nathanael. “Syriac and Syrians in the later Roman Empire: questions of identity.” In The Syriac World, 162, cf 157.
[33] Poirot, John. “The Romano-Parthian Cold War: Julio-Claudian Foreign Policy in the First Century CE and Tacitus' Annales.” PhD diss., Louisiana State University, 2014, 1