Talk:𐌽𐌰𐌿𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌼𐌱𐌰𐌹𐍂

What calendar? "Attested (with difficulty: the manuscript is a palimpsest) in the 5th/6th century Gothic Calendar." What is the soruce of this please? Not out of objection or suspicion but genuine curiosity.--Sigehelmus (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: -- a quick Google would have led you here. The trouble is that the reading of Naubaimbair, though commonly accepted, is not entirely uncontroversial because the text is unclear and is a palimpsest. I seem to remember an author proposing a different reading, but I forgot in which article I read that. — Kleio (t · c) 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@KIeio I'm sorry, I tried but didn't get that result. I wasn't trying to be accusatory, I just found the term to be interesting, particularly the time period. Also why isn't reconstructed inflection table included in the article?--Sigehelmus (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it isn't clear what its declension would've been based on just this form: it's only attested once. If I'd have to venture a guess, it'd probably be either an a-stem (neuter, I suppose, or masculine following the Latin word it's borrowed from) or some sort of irregular declension, or it could just be indeclinable. — Kleio (t · c) 17:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@KIeio Ah I see. Also that piques my interest on another thing, the pronunciation in Gothic is attested as /nɔ.βɛm.bɛr/. Would this suggest that by the 5th-6th centuries AD that Latin v had fully shifted to /v/ from /w/, or perhaps /β/ in the Vulgar Latin source? Actually do you think this word was borrowed from a Classical, Ecclesiastical, or Vulgar source based on pronunciation?--Sigehelmus (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: Well, the pronunciation obviously isn't exactly attested, but I get what you mean. I added it based on its Gothic spelling, which seems (but I'm no expert on post-Classical Latin pronunciation) fairly clearly to reflect a post-Classical pronunciation; Classical Latin would have a /w/ pronunciation for v, where the Gothic transliterates the word with the bilabial fricative 𐌱 (b) (when intervocalic it is a fricative), which Wikipedia tells me is pretty much the same sound the Classical Latin /w/ developed into in Vulgar Latin as early as the 1st century AD. On historical grounds I'd argue for a later loan, though. Based on the greatly intensified contact between Goths and Roman empire & Christianization of the Goths during the 4th century it probably wouldn't have been loaned earlier than that, in which case it obviously can't be a Classical loan (which would've made it an extraordinarily early loan indeed for such a specific term anyway).

With this in mind, and given the date of the manuscript it occurs in (late 5th/early 6th c.), the terminus post quem would be around 325 and the terminus ante quem would be around 525 for this loan; I'd personally lean more towards a 5th century date. Since neither Classical Latin nor what we call Ecclesiastical Latin were really a thing during that time period, the Gothic has to be based on a Vulgar Latin pronunciation. Three notes: first, to be really sure you'd need to take a closer look at vowel development from the 1st-6th century AD in Latin to see how it corresponds to the reconstructed Gothic pronunciation; second our reconstruction of the pronunciation of both 𐌰𐌿 and 𐌰𐌹 in Gothic (diphthong? monophthong?) is disputed which would render the aforementioned correspondence difficult to work with anyway; and third, this word as I have mentioned is not a clear reading and may in fact not have existed in Gothic. — Kleio (t · c) 19:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@KIeio: Hi there, I know I'm about almost two years late, but I just wanted to thank you for this informative reply, since I never got to. :) I'm sorry. You sparked a continued interest in Gothic and medieval Latin for me!--Sigehelmus (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: No problem at all, happy to hear it. Looking back at this convo I'd like to add that words like this may well have been learned borrowings/used only in Church contexts: there isn't really any strong indication of whether your 'average Goth' in Ostrogothic Italy would've used this term to refer to the month. This is true for a majority of loanwords in Gothic (and generally inherent in the nature of written language in Late Antique Europe anyway due to the limitations of our sources), excepting those terms that have clearly become colloquial and 'Gothicized' (e.g. 𐌺𐍂𐌴𐌺𐍃 (krēks)) or those not borrowed from one of the scribal linguae francae (Latin and Koine) of Late Antiquity (e.g. 𐍀𐌻𐌹𐌽𐍃𐌾𐌰𐌽 (plinsjan) and 𐌺𐌴𐌻𐌹𐌺𐌽 (kēlikn)). (Then in the cases of those latter two terms, there is also the issue of archaism: they were recorded only in Wulfilan Gothic, but who knows if Goths in Italy two centuries later still used them? They might as well have been outdated the same way that a lot of KJV-style Early Modern English is outdated.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)