We will start off with a look at the Gothic demonstratives. The standard demonstrative is sa, or more fully, sa-thata-sou. This serves as a relatively weak demonstrative, as well as a non-deictic determiner, and may have been tending towards a definite article in its development, although it certainly is not the equivalent of the Greek definite article,

which is very often simply omitted in the Gothic translation. This word has a fairly extensive set of forms. It's inflected fully for case, number, singular and plural, no duels for this one, and gender. If we compare the masculine inflection of sa to the standard masculine a-stem noun, we can find some partial overlaps or similarities of form, especially in the plural forms.

So here, the accusative plural ending "-ants", in the a-stems, is quite similar to the demonstrative ending "-thants". Similarly, the genitive ending "-is", in a form like "-dagis", of an a-stem noun,

is very similar to the genitive singular demonstrative "-this". In addition, the dative plural has an M-forming element, which resembles not just the a-stems, but virtually all Gothic nominals.

Many of the remaining inflections, however, are a little bit more distinctive, and are often referred to as pronominal endings. This includes endings such as the dative singular "-ama", and the accusative singular "-ana", as well as the nominative plural ending "-a". We can do a similar comparison of the feminine forms of "-so", and the feminine o-stem nouns.

In this case, the similarities are more thoroughgoing, with only the nominative and accusative singulars, so "-so", and "-tho", similar to "-theu-the", or slightly different from "-theu-the", and "-theu-the".

Even this difference is fairly trivial, especially if we take a diachronic perspective, since final "-o-" was shortened to "-a", except in monosyllables, and before this shortening took place, the congruence of demonstrative and noun inflections would have been nearly perfect. While "-sa-" is the most common demonstrative in Gothic, it is not the only one.

The main alternative is a distal demonstrative "-jens", "-jena", "-jenata", "-that", over there, and it's cognate with archaic English "-jan". Besides this, some set phrases preserve a third demonstrative, a proximal, which is no longer really synchronically active in Gothic. The stem of this demonstrative is "-hi", and it's usually found in time expressions such as "-und hinadag",

until this day. It was more widespread in earlier Germanic, and we've retained it in English as the basis for our personal pronouns, "-he", "-him", "-her", etc. With the old proximal demonstrative "-hi", sidelined and fossilized, Gothic has innovated a new proximal and often emphatic formation

by suffixing the enclitic "-üh-" to the standard demonstrative "-sa". So this pronoun "-sa", means this one here, this very, and the demonstrative form of it is really quite distinct from the un-suffixed plain "-sa", as shown by, for instance, the fact that it never translates

the Greek article under any circumstances. It should be distinguished from instances of normal "-sa", followed by the enclitic conjunction "-üh", where the enclitic is just serving as a clausal chord connector. These look the same on the surface, but they're quite different formations.

If we turn from demonstratives to adjectives, there are a few key features to note. First of all, there is the double inflection of adjectives, where a typical adjective has two endings to express any given case, number, gender inflection. The more common set of endings is referred to as the strong set, and the other, more marked set, is the weak endings.

Within these two sets, the pattern of inflection in the weak adjectives is relatively simple. It consists entirely of end-stem endings. On the other hand, the inflection of the strong endings is a little bit more distinctive. Some of the endings resemble masculine A-stem noun endings, and others resemble pronoun endings.

We can see this in the strong masculine inflection of an adjective like blintz, blind. The nominative singular, in particular with its ending s, is similar to the A-stem nouns. It, however, does not resemble any pronominal endings.

Other endings, such as the accusative singular Anna, are more similar to the pronominal ending Anna and do not resemble substantive endings, particularly. Of course, a few endings like the genitive singular in is, could equally resemble a pronominal ending like this

or a nominal ending, as in dagus. This situation is interesting both synchronically and diachronically, and reflects the status of adjectives as sort of somewhere between the regular noun system, substantive adjectives in particular are very common, and the system of adnominal modifiers. One curious feature of the strong forms of the neuter adjective

are that there are two different endings available for the nominative and accusative singular. Most often, such adjectives have no ending at all, such as blind or al, with a null ending. But in a number of cases, we find an extended ending ata added on, giving blindata, alata, et cetera.

We can see both forms in this example here, alatathulath, alatagalovith, alwenith, algabiyith. Endures all, believes all, hopes for all, waits through all. In each of these cases, al is an accusative singular object.

In the first two instances, it has the ending ata added on. In the second two instances, we just have the bare form al. The exact function of the longer ata forms is uncertain, although this is clearly the more marked option. Plausible factors which may all play a role include signaling of new information,

prosodic concerns, and potentially conveying a sense of greater solemnity. One noteworthy restriction is that the ata adjectives are almost never predicative. In addition to their normal inflections, adjectives may also take comparative and superlative suffixes in Gothic. Comparatives are most often formed with the suffixes

is or o's, the latter being limited by stem class but overall relatively productive. All comparative adjectives always inflect as weak. Suppletion is pretty common in comparative stems, so, for example, an adjective like lytils, small or little,

takes a suppletive comparative form, miniza, which has no relation at all to the positive form. Some adjectives show a more restricted alternation such as junksjung, which has a comparative stem juhiz,

as in juhiza, younger. This variation was originally phonological back in proto-Germanic, conditioned by Werner's law, but in the synchronic system of Gothic this must be regarded as a lexicalized stem variant. The superlative degree is generally formed to the same stem as the comparative,

including any stem suppletion. It is supplemented with a further T-formant, which devoices the preceding sibilant. Unlike the comparative, the superlative adjectives can inflect freely as weak or strong according to the usual conditions, which we'll discuss in the lectures on syntax.

So far we've covered demonstratives and adjectives. Much of the remainder of the Gothic nominal system consists of an array of pronominal elements. These include a full set of personal pronouns. The first and second person stand out for having not just singular and plural forms like most Gothic nominals, but also a special set of dual forms.

So for example, in the first person nominative, we have not just a singular ik and plural wis, I and we respectively, but also wit, we too, the two of us. These dual forms are fully inflected for case,

but not gender, and indeed the first and second person forms in general do not mark gender at all. By contrast, the third person anaphoric pronoun is inflected for gender, but lacks any dual forms. A noteworthy feature of the pronominal system is that while genitive forms do exist, they are somewhat restricted in their use.

When modifying possessed nouns, a special set of pronominal possessive adjectives, which inflect as normal adjectives, is used instead. So here in the example gahap thena, we can see the true genitive form of thena being used as a verbal argument of the verb hilpan, which takes a genitive object.

But in the next example, hilt min ezos ungalovines, help my unbelief, the possessive min is modifying the noun ungalovines, and therefore takes an adjectival ending ezos, which agrees, its genitive singular feminine,

to agree with ungalovines. Gothic also has a distinct set of interrogative pronouns, which stand out for their very restricted inflection. There's no number marking in particular in these forms. So a single set, formally singular, is used for singular, dual, or plural reference.

They do, however, fully inflect for case, and gender is distinguished as well. Gothic actually stands out as innovative within the Germanic family for having a distinct set of feminine interrogatives instead of just neuter versus uder as most other Germanic languages. There are also more specific interrogatives available, such as huarius, witch, or the dualistic huathar,

witch of two. The interrogative pronoun can also serve as an indefinite, meaning any or some. If we add the suffix uch, huass can also serve as the stem for a set of distributive pronouns. So huassuch is not interrogative hu, or an indefinite anyone, but a distributive ich.

This suffixed form can itself be further modified. An indefinite pronoun can be formed by prefixing an inflected form of sa, so that sa huassuch means anyone. Prefixing this instead gives this huassuch, which means whosoever. These various combinations are relatively idiosyncratic, mostly innovative

in Gothic, and are not presented very clearly in the handbooks. But they can be very important for understanding the Gothic text precisely. Let's move on to a quick look at the negative pronouns, no one or not anyone, whose formation can also be a little bit complex. They usually involve the negative particle ni,

and the suffix huen. The suffix can be added to any of several base elements, the noun mana, person, the interrogative adjective again, huass, or most commonly it is added to the numeral ens, one, so that ni

ens huen means not anyone, no one. This is the usual negative pronoun. Let's finish up by a quick look at the present participles. These, unlike standard adjectives, do not show the weak-strong variation, and instead show their own inflection. Most of the

inflection consists of end-stem endings, as if weak. However, the nominative singular masculine very often, and the nominative singular feminine occasionally ends with an s, as if a strong ending rather than an end-stem ending. So we can see that here in an example,

sa tojans willjan atdens minis, the one doing the will of my father. The participle here is tojans, which has the nominative singular ending s, even though it occurs after a determiner and we would normally expect a weak ending for a standard

inflection in that context. Feminines usually follow the end-stem inflection, so the more marked of the two end-stem inflections, rather than the own-stem inflection. So we can see an example here, maria gasehwa ndani ina.

Maria having seen him, Mary having seen him. Our participle is gasehwa di, with this e ending is the nominative singular of the e in stems. And that concludes the final lecture on Gothic Nominal Morphology. Thank you

very much for your attention.