Rit (Vísindafélag Íslendinga) - 01.06.1970, Side 382

380
be sure, scholars seem to agree that unnam on the Reistad-
inscription (SW-Norway) is to be interpreted as the preterite
of *und-neman (Dal ig3o(b):i85; Krause-Jankuhn 1966:171-
172). But this is by no means conclusive. The words unnam
wraita are both hapaxes. No verb corresponding to *und-neman
occurs in the sources of the Old Germanic languages, and
wraita, interpreted as the acc. sing. of a neuter a-stem, is other-
wise unknown.
Remnants (i.e., the g-) of the prefix *ga- (Goth. ga-) are
preserved in several Nordic nouns and derived verbs, e.g.
OI glíkr, adj., glíkja, v., gnógr, adj., granni, m., and a few others
(cf. Goth. galeiks, adj., galeikön, v., ganöhs, adj., garazna, m.).
Otherwise, such frequent prefixes as Goth. ga- and bi- are
totally absent from Old Icelandic, perhaps with one excep-
tion. OI bneri (hapax) has been understood as pret. of *bnúa
‘rub’, cf. Goth. bnauan < *bi-nöwan, but the etymology is
uncertain (see de Vries 1961:46; Feist 1939:101).1
More important is the so-called ‘expletive particle’ (Germ.
Fúllwort) ofjum. It had been suspected for a long time that this
particle had something to do with lost prefixes. That this was
in fact the case first became generally accepted when two
scholars, Hans Kuhn and Ingerid Dal, simultaneously and
independently, and after a thorough investigation, came to
the conclusion that the expletive particle was the successor
of unstressed prefixes, originally their regular substitute
(Kuhn 1929:73; Dal 1930 (a): 63 and 88).
Its earliest occurrence, however, in ob kam on the Eggja-
stone inscription (ca. 700) is somewhat problematic since one
tSomc more examples might be mentioned where initial b- has been interpret-
ed as a remnant of the prefix *bi-, e.g. breiða faðm in Rígsþula 16 and OSw.
bröþa (<*bi-raiðian; see Kock 1908:181-185). Kock’s interpretation is favoured
by Gering-Sijmons 1927-31:1.353. Furthermore, the verb brengla has been
interpreted as going back to *bi-wrangilön (see de Vries 1961:55; Jóhannesson
1956:143-144). And, finally, it has been suggested that MI bjáta, NNorw. bjátta
is descended from *bi-háttan (Torp 1919:25; called in question by Jóhannesson
1956:179). None of these etymologies has been generally accepted.