Talk:Negau helmets

Nominalization

Shouldn't the name Harigast be Harigastiz in the nominative?--Berig 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, because the name with -ijaR, holtijaR, in the Guldhorn inscription does not mean "son of Holt, but is a titel, totaly independent from the name hlevagastiR.

HlevagastiR means english: living goose (fem) german: lebende Gans (fem) danish: levende gås (fem)

HoltijaR er en titel, which has the same meaning as ehalto. A person with a holdning.--Gerhard schleu (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't know anyone who interprets Hlewagastiz this way, and it just doesn't work out (see *libjanan "live" and *gans "goose"). The second part of the compound is universally identified with *gastiz "guest". The first part is more uncertain, but probably derived from the root *ḱlew- (see *ḱléwos). Anyway, I don't see what holtijaz (probably derived from *hultan "wood", and unlikely to have any connection with *haldanan in light of the t rather than d) has to do with the question whether Harigast should really be given as Harigastiz. I agree with Berig that it should. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Berig and Blaschke above are correct. On pages 122-3 of Markey's article he states very clearly that the interpretation is Harigasti teiva. Markey posits that it's Germanic mediated through Rhetic, which is what accounts for the lack of the -z/-R nom.sg. ending. I don't think the person who wrote this wikipedia page actually read (the entirety of) Markey's (107-page(!)) article, because earlier in the article Markey indicates that the reading harigas titeiva is the incorrect reading... I will change the page to reflect what Markey actually states in the article, because I don't know a single linguist who would interpret the text as harigas titeiva, it simply defies all logic and makes no sense. Vindafarna (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Harigasti(z) and Grimm's law

The article as it stands already contains some discussion of the possibility that the fragment teiwa(z) reflects the Grimm's law change *t -> *d but considering the seemingly less controversially identified Harigasti(z) already demonstrates the change *k -> *h as the first half of the compound *Harjaz is pretty universally reconstructed as deriving from a pan-European form *Kóryos itself usually derived from the PIE root *ker-.

I'm not a linguistic expert or an experienced wikipedia editor myself, so apologies for any mistakes Wulfgifu (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've read the linked page from Smith's Old English: A Linguistic Introduction and it does not provide any intelligible objection. Certainly not any relevant one. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)