Dienstag, 14. Mai 2019

The spearhead of Rozwadów

I recently came across an article by Piotr Garbacz with the title "Runic Inscription on the Spearhead of Rozwadów (KJ 35): ik eruls or ik erlas?" (you can read it here; he has apparently two publications, which deal with this topic:  –]krlus Jak rozumieć napis na grocie rozwadowskiej włóczni?, in: Anna Garbacz (red.),  Z przeszłości miasta Rozwadowa.  Muzeum Regionalne w Stalowej Woli 2015, 73-79 and Inskrypcja na grocie rozwadowskiej włóczni (KJ35): ik eruls czy ik erlas?, LingVaria 21 [2016], 13-20).

He states that both 'readings' - ik eruls and ik erlas - are possible, although ik erlas seems a bit more likely. When, however, ik eruls is read, "[t]his reading would then be the only Germanic attestation of the continuant of Proto-Germanic *erulaz, found to date only in Greek and Latin sources (Lat. Eruli with variants ...)". He ascribes the form PGmc. *erulaz to a suffix variant next to PGmc. *erlaz and PGmc. *erilaz.

This, however, is incorrect. As was shown by Norbert Wagner (Zur Etymologie von Hermun-duri, BNF 43 [2008], 407-410), the -u- in the name of the Eruli is due to an inner-Latin insertion (Vokaleinschub) between -r- and -l-; the Lat.-Gmc. name of the Eruli thus also reflects PGmc. *erlaz. The only suffix variants are therefore PGmc. *erlaz (continued e.g. in Lat.-Gmc. Eruli, OIcl. jarl) and PGmc. *erilaz (continued in Run. erilaz/irilaz). Now, a Germanic speaker would not insert this Latin -u-, so eruls is not to be expected.
More likely would indeed be (e/i)k erlas < PGmc. *erlaz, which would be interesting, because it would show a form with preserved -a-. For the dating of the syncope this is unfortunately not really helpful because the object has to be dated somewhere between 1-375/400 AD (cf. Lisbeth Imer, Jernalderens Runeindskrifter i Norden - Katalog 2015, 218). However, this (as any) reading and interpretation is far from secured (cf. e.g. Robert Nedoma, Schrift und Sprache in den ostgermanischen Runeninschriften, NOWELE 58/59 [2010], 21f.); it remains even unclear, if the inscription contains runic characters at all (so on this blog). So it seems the best not to deduce anything on the basis of this inscription.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen