A Linguistic Analysis of the Codex Bononiensis *

Summary : In this paper, the recently discovered Codex Bononiensis is linguistically analysed. First, the scribal practice (abbreviations), some phonological features and the grammar in the fragment will be compared with what is found in standard Biblical Gothic. Second, the newly transmitted words ( agisleiks *, 1 dagands *, fairjan *, jiuht[s] *, skaps *, liuþ * and leiks ) will be dealt with etymologically.

b. Other abbreviations: 1. The nasal n is abbreviated with a superscript line in the words þan (9x) and þannu (1x).
Numbers 1., 3., 4., 5. all share a missing h. Of these cases 1. þair could point to an assimilation of --rh to --r as in þairwakands (Lk 6:12) versus þairhwakandans (Lk 2:8). 9 The forms 3., 4. and 5. with hauhairt--instead of hauhhairt--10 also seem to point to a weaker pronunciation of h before a vowel (the same writing with a single --h--in this word is found in 2. Tim 3:2B). 11 As it should not be the object of an edition to transform this late text into a pseudo--Wulfilanian one, the loss of --h (--) should in my opinion be preserved in the text. The emendation in 9. of <sagqids> into saggqids is not necessary at all because before q the writing of the nasal as g is the rule, and its spelling as gg the exception (although the spelling gg before q occurs more often than before g). 12 That sagqids is indeed the correct form for this manuscript can easily be seen by the form sagqanana, which has (by mistake?) not been emended into sag<g>qanana by Falluomini 13 (it is further confirmed by the form <faurasuggwanin>). I guess that the motive for the emendation is to be found in the consistent use of <ggq> in Ambrosianus B that Falluomini regards to be close paleographically. 14 In conclusion, the emendations in 1., 3., 4., 5. and 9. are misleading, since the spellings in the Codex Bononiensis apparently reflect the language/writing of the author/writer. d. Others 15 1. In two cases the expected outcome of the Auslautverhärtung before s is not written: mitads, ufsagqids with d (against unfroþs, inmaidiþs with thorn). This 8 Cf. Falluomini (2014: 284). 9 Cf. Krause (1968: 133); Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 84). 10 Cf . Finazzi/Tornaghi (2013: 143-144). 11 Cf. Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 69-70). 12 Cf. Krause (1968: 69); Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 72). 13 Cf. Falluomini (2014: 301). 14 Falluomini (2014: 284); cf. also Finazzi/Tornaghi (2013: 144). 15 Cf. Finazzi/Tornaghi (2013: 144); Falluomini (2014: 284 16 This could point to a neutralisation of þ and đ in this position (comparable phenomena in other languages could be adduced for that). However, I always wonder why the d--forms are not consistently emended in the editions.

Grammar
The grammar of the fragment largely follows that found in Wulfila's Bible translation. In the singular, the inflections of the a--and the i--stems are identical, so it cannot be determined from the pure form of aiwa whether we are dealing with the a-- or the 16 Cf. Krause (1968: 130-131); Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 76-77). 17 Cf. Krause (1968: 158); Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 91).
The forms are without any irregularities. In addition, the syntactic use of the weak and strong forms is as would be expected. The only forms that gave me pause for thought were weihs and airkns, for which perhaps weak adjectival forms might be expected. The strong forms can, however, be explained by the close following of the Greek Vorlage.

wesun, wisandam.
It is a pity that of the verb digan* only the preterite form daig is transmitted.
Thus, also this new text cannot help us decide if the present of this verb is a 26 In the following, the forms will only be listed because tables would be too complex and the information, therefore, too confusing.

27
On the long and short forms in the acc. of weis, cf. Krause (1968: 192); Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 132-133). For the functional distinction between uns and unsis cf. Snaedal (2010 hausideduþ, hropeiþ, inmaidiþs, inriurida, insandei, lauseiþ, matida, nasjan, nasjai, nasei (7x), taujands, ufsagqids, usbugjondane, waurkjai, wenjandans. They are unproblematic except for one form, namely usbugjondane. This is a genitive plural masculine or neuter of the present participle pointing to a weak verb of the second class, usbugjon*. However, the other attestations of this verb (also without a prefix and with the prefix fra--) point to a weak verb of the first class (--)bugjan. 30 If such had been the case here too, we would expect a form + usbugjandane. So one might conclude that the spelling with --o--is a scribal error. And indeed, there is one instance of such an error in the Codex Argenteus, namely in ainoho (Lk 8:42) for + ainaho. 31 In ainoho, however, the --o-- can either be explained from the analogical influence of ainohun or as an anticipatory error due to the following o of the ending. For usbugjondane, such an explanation is impossible. Therefore, if usbugjondane indeed stands for *usbugjandane, a simple scribal error must be 28 Cf. Krause (1968: 230); Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 150); LIV (140-141).

Lexicon
The last part of this overview will be devoted to the lexicon. Mostly, of course, the lexicon coincides with the transmitted lexicon, consisting predominantly of words also used by Wulfila in his translation of the Bible. Cf. Krause (1968: 243); Braune/Heidermanns (2004: 161).

dage, OSwed. daghas. This PGmc. derivation of the substantive PGmc. *đaǥa-- 'day'
has a parallel in verbs like OHG nahtēn to naht 'night' and OHG abandēn to aband 'evening'. Besides this derivation, there is also a weak verb of the second class, PGmc. *đaǥōi̯ e/a--, which is continued in OE dagian, ME dauen. 38 However, the semantics remain somewhat unclear. The underlying meaning of the verb must have been 'to become day', which would mean that the participle meant 'becoming day'; a nomen agentis derived from this is difficult to imagine ('the day becomer').

Conclusion
All in all, the linguistic status of the Codex Bononiensis is as could be expected. It mirrors to a large extent the classical Gothic language. The most noticeable feature in the phonology is the loss of h (which is also found in other manuscripts and is a late feature in Gothic). Only a few deviations are found in the morphology of the fragment (Saudomos, handam, usbugjondane). Of primary interest are, however, the new words that appear in the manuscript (agisleiks*, dagands*, fairjan*, jiuht[s]*, skaps*, liuþ* and leiks).