. Contributions to Old English literature. ver, proceeding tothe next, might easily forget the mx. Fugiant is miscut for-unt; afitatores is habitatores. \ \ \ The inscription may be rendered: Here fight Titus and ? Wadstein also regards gibrojiger as the correct form, supporting it by areference to Brugmann, ii. § 320. What he means is not clear. Brugmannthere gives the ending Indog. -tres as the regular ending from which theGermanic nom. plur. is derived (as in ON. (Runic) dohtriR, ON. br^Sr);but this would have yielded a form with the umlaut ce in the root syllable, j I I I On the / of giupe
. Contributions to Old English literature. ver, proceeding tothe next, might easily forget the mx. Fugiant is miscut for-unt; afitatores is habitatores. \ \ \ The inscription may be rendered: Here fight Titus and ? Wadstein also regards gibrojiger as the correct form, supporting it by areference to Brugmann, ii. § 320. What he means is not clear. Brugmannthere gives the ending Indog. -tres as the regular ending from which theGermanic nom. plur. is derived (as in ON. (Runic) dohtriR, ON. br^Sr);but this would have yielded a form with the umlaut ce in the root syllable, j I I I On the / of giupea, which occurs also in OS. Judeo, O. Fris. Joiha/cp. Kluge, Zeitschrift fiir roman. Phitol., xx. 325. Wadstein regards the-asu as a remarkable nom. plur. ending (it certainly would be!), andsuggests that it may be the original of the later -as plural. Does heimagine that a form corresponding to the Sanskrit -dsas could by anypossibility give a seventh or eighth century English -as«? I fear hissuggestion will not meet with IV. THE BACK OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 371 some of the Jews. Here the inhabitants flee from Jeru-salem. As to the meaning of the dom gisl, D. H. Haigh, TheConquest of Britain, p. 43, thought they might perhapsform a rebus of the name of the maker of this casket, dom-gisl To Stephens {Run. Mon. i. 473) they rather appearto refer to the scenes represented, the strong measures takenby Titus to secure the obedience of the conquered city andof the people of Judaea generally. In Run. Mon. iii. 203he gave another less probable explanation of dom ^- The Right Side (now in Florence). A glance at the facsimile shows that in addition to theordinary runes the carver has made use of certain arbitrarysigns (h A^ X ? ^ J-f), and, furthermore, that there is an almostentire absence of vowel-runes, the only exceptions beingthe a in the ligature/a (left), and the e rune* (bottom). The natural conclusion to be drawn from this was thatthe arbitrary signs represent the
Size: 2059px × 1213px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookpublisheroxfor, bookyear1901
