Written by Dyami Millarson
The Gothic loanword Ansis is found in the Gothic history of the Latin author Jordanes. Ansis is a latinised form because although the stem Ans- is Germanic, the suffix -is is evidently Latin.
Jordanes says: ,,magnāque potitī per loca victoriā jam procerēs suōs, quōrum quasi fortūnā vincēbant, nōn pūrōs hominēs, sed semideōs id est Ansīs vōcāvērunt”. This may be rendered as: ,,Having won a great victory over the lands, which they had conquered almost as if by fortune, they called their nobles not pure men, but Demigods, namely Æsir/Anses.”
What is the grammatical number and case of Ansis? Is the vowel in the suffix -is long or short, and what can this information tell us? In the sentence where Ansis is used, it corresponds to Semideōs, procerēs and hominēs and although the expression id est is used to express that Semideōs is synonymous with Ansis, an accusative is demanded by the verb vōcāvērunt in that sentence. Therefore, we know that Ansis is an accusative plural noun and this means that -is should be interpreted as -īs, which is a variant of -ēs. An additional argument for why Ansīs must be an accusative plural is that it would be odd to use the suffix -īs instead of -ēs for the nominative plural in Latin; when the -īs variant of the suffix -ēs is used, it is usually in the accusative plural of i-stems, which we will return to later in this article. Although the suffix -īs also used as a dative or ablative plural ending in Latin, it should not be interpreted as such here.
What is the grammatical gender of Ansīs? Whilst we know that Semideōs is masculine, this is not sufficient evidence in itself to conclude it is masculine. Ansīs is cognate with Áss and Ásynja in Old Norse, which are masculine and feminine nouns respectively. Given the three facts that (1) the Germanic Ans- only yields a masculine and feminine option, (2) the Latin noun Semideōs supports the masculine interpretation, and (3) Ansīs is an etymological match with the Old Norse maculine noun Ǫ́ss, Ansīs must be masculine. Finally, the context provided by the text of the Gothic history of Jordanes is an additional factor why this interpretation is th3 most likely to be be correct.
How should Ansīs be declined? The accusative plural -īs corresponds to the third declension, particularly the i-stem declension.
Latin nouns are usually given in the nominative singular followed by their genitive singular form. What is the nominative singular and genitive singular form of Ansīs? If the Gothic nominative form of the Gothic noun is an u-stem like Proto-Norse *Ansuʀ (> Old Norse Ǫ́ss) and is therefore *Ansus, then the latinised nominative and genitive singular must not have been *Ans, *Ansis corresponding to the Latin pure i-stem third declension noun animal, animalis but it must have been *Ansis, *Ansis corresponding to the Latin i-stem third declension nouns ignis ignis, turris, turris, and nāvis, nāvis. Yet, if the declension of the Gothic form does not correspond to Old Norse and is an i-declension like kwiss instead so that the nominative singular is *Ans and the nominative plural is *Ansīs in Gothic, then it must be the other way around: the latinised nominative and genitive singular must not have been *Ansis, *Ansis corresponding to the Latin i-stem third declension nouns ignis ignis, turris, turris, and nāvis, nāvis but it must have been *Ans, *Ansis corresponding to the Latin pure i-stem third declension noun animal, animalis. The argument for the Gothic i-stem may be found in the facts that (1) the latinised form is an i-stem and (2) the Latin plural accusive i-stem suffix -īs looks like the Gothic nominative and accusative plural i-stem suffix -īs. The argument for the Gothic u-stem may be found in the fact that the cognate in North Germanic, to which East Germanic is closely related, is clearly an u-stem. Interestingly, the attested Old English show signs of i-mutation, which may inspire us to suspect that an u-stem declension and i-stem declension of this word might have existed side by side. We may therefore reconstruct the latinised nominative as *Ans(is). Nevertheless, conflation with Latin i-stem forms ending in -is is possible so that a Latin speaker may have been tempted to use *Ansis for the nominative singular regardless of the original Gothic form for the nominative singular.
Whilst we may intend to use the word in the plural in English texts and Latin nouns, when used in the plural in English texts, are usually given in their nominative form, it is convenient to know the nominative form. So what is the nominative plural form of *Ans(is), *Ansis? The ending should be -ēs like in ignēs, turrēs, and nāvēs and therefore it must be *Ansēs. It should really not be too hard to change Ansīs to its nominative plural form given that the accusative plural ending -īs is itself a variant of -ēs.
What is the genitive plural form of *Ans(is), *Ansis? It should be *Ansium because the genitive plural ending of the i-stem declension is always -ium, e.g. ignium, turrium, and nāvium.
What is the accusative singular of *Ans(is), *Ansis? Is it like -im/-em like nāvim/nāvem and turrim/turrem, or is it -em like ignem? Since the ending -im has been largely displaced by -em, there would have been a strong incination to use *Ansem, although the more archaic i-stem form *Ansim is not within the realm of the impossible. The New Latin Grammar says of the i-stem: ,,Originally the Accusative Singular ended in -im, the Ablative Singular in -ī, and the Accusative Plural in -īs; but these endings have been largely displaced by -em, -e, and -ēs, the endings of Consonant-Stems.” The New Latin Grammar also suggests that many i-stem nouns ,,at times show -im and -ī. Town and river names in -is regularly have -im, -ī.”
So what is the full declension of *Ans(is), *Ansis? Nom. sg. *Ansis, acc. sg. *Ansem, *Ansim, gen. sg. *Ansis, dat. sg. *Ansī, abl. sg. *Anse, *Ansī, nom. pl. *Ansēs, acc. pl. *Ansēs, Ansīs, gen. pl. *Ansium, dat. pl. *Ansibus, abl. pl. *Ansibus.
Viking Religion 