User talk:Bloodofox/Proto-Germanic folklore

Collaboration

@Alcaios:, @Berig:, @Ermenrich:, @Haukurth:, @Yngvadottir:—I've started building this out to list the many entities and concepts for which scholars have proposed Proto-Germanic reconstructions (and/or Proto-Germanic motifs), and I invite you to help flesh it out. Alcaios, I understand that you've been working on something quite similar (I've seen it but I can't seem to find it now), but I am not sure if you're open to others working on that with you or if you're still pursuing completing that, so I went ahead and began this. Please ping anyone else you think might be interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bloodofox:, I've worked on a similar list that you can find here. It's still a draft so you can easily merge it with your own work. I'm currently working on improving the article on Early Germanic calendars (draft), but I would be glad to help you if I can find the time to work on both projects in parallel. Alcaios (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent—thanks for linking to that. I'll go ahead and start merging this data over here soon. While I generally avoid abbreviations wherever possible, I think you have the right idea with the abbreviations and the placement of a legend on your draft. I'll be happy to contribute to the article you link to. Glad to see so much activity in these areas again! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich: and I are busy building lists of Legendary Germanic heroes, clans, objects, etc. I'd love to help you out, but I feel we need to finish it first.--Berig (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we're making pretty good progress and should be done in a few weeks probably, don't you Berig? Or am I underestimating how many saga figures need to be added again?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think two or three more weeks is a reasonable estimate.--Berig (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Proto-Germanic is poorly attested". Isn't it by definition completely unattested? Srnec (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The corpus contains items such as the Negau_helmet ("Harigast") and figures like Tacitus provide Proto-Germanic forms here and there (Idistaviso, etc). And welcome, Srnec, good to see you here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec is right: a linguist would no longer count any attested forms as “Proto-Germanic “ even if they are close to it. I believe terms such as early Germanic or just Germanic are used instead.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pfold: probably knows the correct terminology.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's possible to assign it to a specific branch of Gmc, I think it's safest (and not incorrect) to say just "Germanic". --Pfold (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos:—thought I had included you in the original wave of invites! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, Bloodofox. It's wonderful to see Wikipedians working in harmony on the creation of quality content. The following sources may be useful additions to the draft:

It seems to me that this draft is quite closely related to the following drafts and articles:

Perhaps it could be an idea to combine all these into one article, perhaps titled Outline of Germanic mythology and heroic legend? Krakkos (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you here, Krakkos. Considering how enormous the combined articles would be, I think the best solution would be to emphasize how interconnected the articles are. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hludana/Hlóðyn

Perhaps someone with access to de Vries could add Hludana/Hlóðyn as a reconstructed PGmc deity name? She's not in Orel, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich: done. Do you need an access to de Vries? Alcaios (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re offering I won’t say no, Alcaios ;-). Thank you!—Ermenrich (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does de Vries not provide a reconstructed form? I think I've seen one floating around here somewhere, potentially from Simek... :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich: ~~here you go~~ (See comment below). I made a temporary link from my server to avoid copyright issues. I also ran an OCR scan on the file so it should be mostly searchable. @Bloodofox: de Vries only mentions a form *hlōþawini reconstructed by Kauffman (1894), but this is based on Kauffman's own understanding of the original meaning. I didn't see any reconstructed form for this name in Simek. Alcaios (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcaios:, I should have clarified: This isn't in Simek's handbook but rather in an article authored by Simek. I'm trying to remember where it was, exactly, but I do recall being surprised to see it. I'll keep looking. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this, I was referring to Simek's paper ("Germanic religion and Conversion to Christianity") in Early Germanic Literature and Culture (2004, Camden House). On page 83, Simek discusses the deity but unfortunately does not provide a reconstruction. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it's better to share the entire folder containing my collection of IE etymological dictionaries, in case you also need Kroonen (2013) and Lehmann (1986). Here's the link. Alcaios (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a goldmine! Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lindworm

Orel includes a reconstruction for lindworm, but is there a consensus that this was a word for dragon in Proto-Germanic? The attestations are limited to OHG, MLG, and ON.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think our scope here should be all proposed reconstructed Proto-Germanic forms that fall within the parameters of folklore. By directly attributing listed reconstructions in a very transparent manner, we can avoid any accompanying issues with them. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the reconstructed forms are only attested in Northwest Germanic anyway. Gothic was heavily influenced by Christianity and Greek culture from an early time. Some reconstructed names are even only attested in one Germanic branch (e.g. *Yumiyaz > Ymir, *melđunjaz > Mjǫllnir), but we're almost certain that they existed in Proto-Germanic because they are cognate with theonyms found in other IE languages. Alcaios (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that Wikipedia claims the Norse forms are borrowed from German, mostly, but of course it's not sourced.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add

Please list items to add in this section. I'll start:

Baduhenna (Tacitus)
Vagdavercustis, Vihansa
ferʒ(w)unjan ~ *ferʒ(w)unjò (Orel)
lauxaz (Orel)
nemeđaz (Orel) (Not sure if PGmc; the only instance given by Orel is OFrank. nimid, which is certainly borrowed from Gaul. nemeton).
saida- (Kroonen)
skrad/ttan (Kroonen)
sidu- (Kroonen)
skalda- (Kroonen)
Tamfana (Tacitus)
trullan (Orel) (Not sure if this word is really of PGmc origin. The MHG form is probably borrowed from ON as per Orel)
þur(i)saz (Orel)
wira-wulfaz (Orel)
xaruʒaz (Orel)
wīxōn (Orel)
xuʒi-rūnō (Orel)
~~Motif: Meadow of the dead (*wangaz) (Orel, Hopkins & Haukur)~~
Motif: Kvasir-Soma correspondence (Simek)
Motif: Grove of fetters (Simek)

I'll add more as time permits but please also feel free to go ahead and add these if you have the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Alcaios: Weekday names and pre-medieval record Germanic deities

I've moved these questions from @Alcaios: to here (I hope you don't mind, Alcaios):

(Notes for contributors)

– Some deities are also attested in weekdays (e.g. *Tiwaz in OFris Tīesdei, *Þunraz in MDu. Donresdach, etc. – see User:Alcaios/Germanic#Days and weeks). Should it be included as Tīes* and Donres* (cf. *Þingsaz)?

– Should we include Germanic deities attested during the Roman period but absent from Medieval Germanic languages? (e.g. Vagdavercustis, Vihansa, etc.)

These are good questions and I've wondered about them myself. I think we might consider including a section on weekday names, as the weekday names fall in the realm of folklore, particularly if they involve something involving a deity. Alcaios, should that be on the Germanic calendar article you're working on instead and piped from here?

Second, I think we definitely should include those theonyms and I am also wondering about things like all of those Matronae names listed in Simek. I do think they should be included somehow—currently our coverage of them on English Wikipedia is rather poor. What are some great (and ideally fairly recent) sources to find them all indexed and discussed? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged, although there's also an article called Early Germanic calendars which I planned to replace with my draft when it's finished.

I would also include those theonyms; they are nothing else than Latinized (Late) Proto-Germanic names.

I think we should also replace the x-letter with a 'h' in reconstructed names (e.g. xalja-rūnō > halja-rūnō; Xaljō -> Haljō) since using the IPA symbol can be confusing for English speakers. Besides Orel, etymological dictionaries generally use 'h' to represent the voiceless velar fricative ⟨x⟩ in Proto-Germanic. Alcaios (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On x > h, I agree. We might also add a note to avoid any confusion from readers. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do you have an opinion on Orel's use of "ʒ" for what's usually written as "g"?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)?[reply]

Here is Kroonen's rationale for using 'g' instead of 'ʒ' (and 'h' for 'x'; 'd' for 'đ/ð', 'b' for 'ƀ', etc.) in reconstructed forms : Due to a shift of the Indo-European stops, Proto-Germanic also acquired a large amount of new fricatives, both voiced and voiceless. The phonemes reconstructed as *b, *d, *g in this dictionary also at least partly appear as *ƀ, *đ, *ʒ in the Germanic dialects. For instance, most languages have plosives word-initially, but *g emerges as a fricative in this position in both Saxon and Franconian. Since the distribution surfacing in the individual languages is divergent, this alternation is likely to have been subphonemic in Proto-Germanic. (p. xvi) TLDR: g/ʒ is probably a dialectal variation according to Kroonen. Alcaios (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alcaios, I only wish some people who actually wrote too long of posts would add a TLDR summary to their posts! :-)--Ermenrich (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An index for Simek's handbook

Since we're discussing adding the matronae and so forth, a big problem with Simek's handbook—in all its editions—is that it lacks an index. Fortunately, an index has been made for it, which you can find here. This will make listing the matronae he mentions in his handbook much easier. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ullr

Is there any particular reason why Ullr isn't included? He is considered to have been one of the older gods.--Berig (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All we need for to meet the criteria of his inclusion is a proposed Proto-Germanic form from a scholar—or at least some discussion about it. Richard North might have something in his work (I belive he has discussed Old English wuldor in this context but I could be wrong). It's possible there might be some discussion out there about a potential OE cognate in connection to the Nine Herbs Charm's wuldor-twigs, too. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe be works on the Thorsberg chape could be used.--Berig (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point—I'll do some digging on this soon. Thanks for pointing this out. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't track down the North reference but I did find Dunn 2010, where she states:

Richard North, for instance, suggests not only that the Anglo-Saxons did not know the entire pantheon of Scandinavian gods now familiar to us through Snorri, but that they also worshipped several divinities whose memory has all but vanished. These include sea-deites or personifications of the ocean; a heavenly body who may be the morning star; and a 'brilliant' or 'glory' numen, Old English wuldor. None of these entities—thought of as persons and personifications—crystallized into later Norse gods and goddesses, though their characteristics and attributes are preserved in later English poetry. (Dunn 2010: 59)

I don't recommend this piece by Dunn (despite its title—The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons C.597-c.700: Discourses of Life, Death and Afterlife—it doesn't even seem to mention Neorxnawang, for example) but it does indicate that there's probably more relevant discussion from North. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, Watkins's How to Kill A Dragon (p. 426) and many others see these forms as ultimately cognate. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I was thinking of North 1997: 64 (The Haustlǫng of Þjóðólfr of Hvinir). :bloodofox: (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "translation" into "etymology"?

This article has really come together and will unoubtedly be an extremely useful resource for many people. However, I have concerns about the "translation" section. What do you say we merge this into the "etymology" section? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What is your concern about the "translation" column? Alcaios (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bloodofox has a point. Both columns provide a translation, but the etymological one does so more in depth, and in a more relevant way. For instance, can it really be accurate to say that *Austrōn meant "easter" in PGmc? It seems more accurate to discuss the etymology instead.--Berig (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to respond here—yeah, this was exactly my take. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be best to merge the "translation" section into the etymology section.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matres and Matronae

I'm adding below a list of names for the Germanic 'mothers' as listed in Simek's handbook. We'll need to check the individual entries before bringing them over as I recall there being significant discussion in some of these entries about whether some of these forms are Germanic or Celtic:

Abiamarcae
Abirenae
Ahineh(i)ae
Ahueccaniae
Alaferhviae
Alagabiae
Alaisiagae
Alateivia
Alaterv(i)ae
Alberich
Albiahenae
Almaviahenae
Alusneihae
Ambiamarcae
Ambiomarc(i)ae
Ambioreneses
Ambirenae
Amfratninae
Amnesahenae
Andrusteihiae
Anesiaminehae
Annanept(i)ae
Arvagast(i)ae
Asericinehae
Atlaterviae
Atufrafinehae
Audrinehae
Aueaniae
Aumenahenae
Austriahenae
Authrinehae
Aviaitinehae
Axsinginehae
Berguiahenae
Berguinehae
Berhuiahenae
Borvoboendoa
Boudunnehae
Cantrusteihiae
Chandrumanehae
Et(h)rahenae
Euthungae
Fachine(i)his
Fernovineae
Frisavae
Gantunae
Gavavidiae
Gavasiae
Gesahenae
Hamavehae
Hiannanef-
Hiheraiae
Hurst(ae)rga
Iulineihiae
Mah(a)linehae
Maitienae
Marsacae
Masanae
Mediotautehae
Romanehae
Rumanehae
Saitchamiae
Seccanehae
Teniavehae
Textumeihae
Tummaestiae
Turstuahenae
Udravarinehae
Ulauhinehae
Vacallinehae
Vallabnaehiae, Valabneiae
Vallamaeneihiae
Vataranehae
Vesuniahenae
Veterahenae
Veteranehae
Vlauhinhae
Vocallinahae

Also:

Friagabis
Gamaleda
Hariasa
Harimella
Meduna
Menmanhia
Nehelannia
Sandraudiga
Sunucsal
Travala(e)ha

Some of these are probably redirects to one another. I expect we'll need a dedicated section on these inscriptions—if not an entirely separate article. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably avoid what is local, and family, deities, and stick to those who are attested in at least two branches of the Germanic languages. It is not surprising if the Germanic colonial south had deities with Roman, Celtic and syncretic origins.--Berig (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These deities are likely comparable to later Norse Fylgjur and Dísir.--Berig (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a slandalone article handling these names would be an ideal solution but I do think we should include some discussion here containing commentary about the connection between the 'mothers', the Old English Mōdraniht and the dísir, valkyries, norns, etc. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I also think there should be some treatment of the house spirits. Finnish has preseved an old name, Haltija, which is compared with a Gothic word, and which means it should have been borrowed in the PGmc era--Berig (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Time to bring this article live?

I think this article is in a state to where it should go live. What do you think? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the issue of "translation" versus "etymology"? Don't we still want to merge those/remove question ones like Austrōn = Easter?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, let me go ahead and make some proposed edits to that and see if that resolves some of the concerns around it. I think this column is primarily an issue for theonyms. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've made some adjustments in the 'deities' section. Does this resolve the issue? I'm thinking the 'translation' section is much more reasonable in the other sections, though, but we could of course also merge those into the etymology sections. What do you think? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to merge them for "entities" as well - in a few cases there the information is identical (e.g. "etymology uncertain" as the translation). It seems to work for the other two sections though.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]