Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 186

Thread: Four questions for those who still believe in prehistoric Slavs and other fairy tales

  1. #151
    Regular Member Milan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-11-15
    Posts
    358


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    There's only one problem with your idea: there's no way you get *eH2 (or Late PIE *ā) regularly to *u in Proto-Slavic (the only way to get there is via Germanic mediation, because *ā became *ō in Proto-Germanic, and the latter was reflected as *ū into Slavic during borrowings). There's no way that buz is regularly in Slavic from the same source. The expected regular reflex of *bheH2ǵos is something akin to *baz, because Late PIE long *ā regularly was preserved in Slavic, as opposed to short *a (which, I've mentioned before, regularly became *o). The fact that there should be an *ā or *eH2 in the word is certain because you have Proto-Germanic *ō, Gaulish and Latin *ā (*bāgo-, "fāgus") and Greek *ē (phēgos).
    I will again suggest him you can find other such satem terminologies,anatolian,mysian,kurdish.
    And is not "buz" but "bъz" the /ъ/ could have come from previous a,e etc ;) so could have been baz,bez, at one stage.
    In my opinion your proposed migration forth and back for the Slavs is redundant. As I said, you have to assume a Baltic and Slavic linguistic unity at one point. I don't see how you can avoid that.
    You haven't answered why so many linguist expressed already their distrust about the theory you are so sure of,are they not aware of this facts you speak of? or all of them are just bogus?
    Plus where will be the river names.
    I do not propose migrations back and forth but that's how suppose to look like,if the word was borrowed from Germanic.
    And I suggest you should memorize my postulates about what Proto-Slavic should look like if it developed indeed on the Balkans. I should add, funnily, that the Albanian language fulfills virtually all of these conditions.
    I won't answer on this,but you must be right.

  2. #152
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    I will again suggest him you can find other such satem terminologies,anatolian,mysian,kurdish.
    And is not "buz" but "bъz" the /ъ/ could have come from previous a,e etc ;) so could have been baz,bez, at one stage.
    It couldn't be 'at one stage' if you would understand how sound laws work.

    You haven't answered why so many linguist expressed already their distrust about the theory you are so sure of,are they not aware of this facts you speak of? or all of them are just bogus?
    From what I have seen from you, you're basically only relying on Curta (who is an archaeologist who really has no clue on linguistics). So yes, from a linguistic perspective, Curta's ideas are just bogus, and that's what I have been trying to tell you from the start of this thread.

  3. #153
    Regular Member Milan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-11-15
    Posts
    358


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    It couldn't be 'at one stage' if you would understand how sound laws work.
    For bъzъ is generaly reconstructed by him as bhaugo/bhugo(bhāuĝo / bhūĝo) or *bʰAuǵ-. by others i can find,i have picked that on the internet that is connected to *bʰeh₂ǵos,however he connect both bъzъ and buk to bhaugo/bhugo and not to a Germanic borrowing.
    Will have come to mean red,shining.

    SUMMARIUM


    Nomen fagi silvaticae summi est momenti in sedibus protoindo-europaeis necnon protoslavicis investigandis. Qua de causa slav. bukь et buky non ad Gothonum dialectos referuntur, sed cum lyd. baukoV »ruber, delicatus«, comparatur, quia baukideV idem valent atque kokkideV. Unde phytonymi protoslavici onomiasiologiam ad medullae fagi silvaticae colorem rubrum (cf. germ. Rotbuche) pertinere colligitur. Quantum ad heteroclisin spectat, stirpes slavicae bukь et buky inprimis cum lat. fagus et fagutalis conferuntur. Termini igitur habitaculorum protoslavicorum meridionales cum terminis fagi silvaticae septentrionalibus non exaequantur.

    If you understand,because i don't.

    We can continue this later,plus if you have the river names post them.
    From what I have seen from you, you're basically only relying on Curta (who is an archaeologist who really has no clue on linguistics). So yes, from a linguistic perspective, Curta's ideas are just bogus, and that's what I have been trying to tell you from the start of this thread.
    That is not true ;)
    Last edited by Milan; 07-10-16 at 08:03.

  4. #154
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    For bъzъ is generaly reconstructed by him as bhaugo/bhugo( and also most other i can find,i have picked that on the internet that is connected to the *bʰeh₂ǵos,however he connect both bъzъ and buk to bhaugo/bhugo and not to a Germanic borrowing.
    Will have come to mean red,shining.

    What is the meaning of *
    bʰeh₂ǵos? is it the same?
    SUMMARIUM

    Nomen fagi silvaticae summi est momenti in sedibus protoindo-europaeis necnon protoslavicis investigandis. Qua de causa slav. bukь et buky non ad Gothonum dialectos referuntur, sed cum lyd. baukoV »ruber, delicatus«, comparatur, quia baukideV idem valent atque kokkideV. Unde phytonymi protoslavici onomiasiologiam ad medullae fagi silvaticae colorem rubrum (cf. germ. Rotbuche) pertinere colligitur. Quantum ad heteroclisin spectat, stirpes slavicae bukь et buky inprimis cum lat. fagus et fagutalis conferuntur. Termini igitur habitaculorum protoslavicorum meridionales cum terminis fagi silvaticae septentrionalibus non exaequantur.

    We can continue this later,plus if you have the river names post them.
    Sorry, this just demonstrates that you have no idea of how sound laws work. There's no way how PIE (even if you're assuming a form *bhaugos, hypothetically) would regularly yield *k in Slavic. In contrast, the shift *g > *k is part of Grimm's Law. I might add that here you're starting to sound - no offense - a bit like Paul Wexler (the linguist who has the idea that Yiddish isn't Germanic but a "relexified" Turkic language), who's fishing for really flimsy and illogical because he somehow cannot accept that Yiddish is basically just a dialect of German. No offense, but to me it sounds that you have the foregone conclusion that (because you're South Slavic yourself?) Slavic languages are autochthonous and every fact must be twisted (or ignored) to fit that idea. Which is not scientific methodology.

    In conclusion, I do not see any error in the model: It is very clear for me that the Slavic languages originated in the forest zone, clearly outside of the Roman Empire and close to the Baltic-speaking areas. You had a common Balto-Slavic language stage. Early Proto-Slavic was heavily influenced by Germanic languages. If Proto-Slavic spread through demic or cultural diffusion is a secondary question, what is principally important is that you had a rapid expansion of the Slavic languages into new (previously non-Slavic) areas then had a breakdown of Slavic linguistic unity (which resulted in the formation of the Slavic language family).

    That is not true ;)
    Its absolutely true. This is why I already stopped about 15 years ago to take Curta seriously. The linguistic model that would match Curta's ideas, and I have mentioned this multiple times in this thread, is that Proto-Slavic was a conlang invented on the Balkans in the 500s. Good luck finding evidence for that.

  5. #155
    Elite member arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004


    Country: Latvia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    For your supposed borrowing for "bridge" from Germanic this is what wiktionary give me;
    Etymology







    • From earlier *mottъ ‎(“something what is dropped, thrown over”), from *mesti ‎(“to throw, to drop”)

    I have a possible counterargument: if the word is supposedly a shared inheritance from PIE, where are the cognates in the Baltic languages?
    We have 'mesti' in Baltic languages (mesti - LT, mest - LV) that still means "to throw". For bridge we use 'tilts' - from different etymology.

    Edit: sorry, noticed Dagne already mentioned this.

  6. #156
    Regular Member Milan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-11-15
    Posts
    358


    Country: Yugoslavia



    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Sorry, this just demonstrates that you have no idea of how sound laws work. There's no way how PIE (even if you're assuming a form *bhaugos, hypothetically) would regularly yield *k in Slavic.
    In contrast, the shift *g > *k is part of Grimm's Law. I might add that here you're starting to sound - no offense - a bit like Paul Wexler (the linguist who has the idea that Yiddish isn't Germanic but a "relexified" Turkic language), who's fishing for really flimsy and illogical because he somehow cannot accept that Yiddish is basically just a dialect of German.
    There you go....
    I am posting you other people reconstractions,all i can find about the word itself and if anything doesn't agree with you,or your theory become to week you begin just to attack,just come down a bit..
    You don't even know the letter /ъ/ in Slavic mistaking it for /u/ and somehow you are lecturing about Slavic languages?

    What you don't understand is yes in Slavic the letter /g/ become /z/ and yes the final /g/ will be pronounced as /k/
    That is how it was written in Church Slavic "bouk" and on the other side you have "bъz" yes the /g/ become /z/ anything unclear here?
    No offense, but to me it sounds that you have the foregone conclusion that (because you're South Slavic yourself?) Slavic languages are autochthonous and every fact must be twisted (or ignored) to fit that idea. Which is not scientific methodology.
    Damn.. what you have against that then,if i even think that way?

    In conclusion, I do not see any error in the model: It is very clear for me that the Slavic languages originated in the forest zone, clearly outside of the Roman Empire and close to the Baltic-speaking areas. You had a common Balto-Slavic language stage. Early Proto-Slavic was heavily influenced by Germanic languages. If Proto-Slavic spread through demic or cultural diffusion is a secondary question, what is principally important is that you had a rapid expansion of the Slavic languages into new (previously non-Slavic) areas then had a breakdown of Slavic linguistic unity (which resulted in the formation of the Slavic language family).
    Your emotionaly attacks doesn't do anything here...

    Its absolutely true. This is why I already stopped about 15 years ago to take Curta seriously. The linguistic model that would match Curta's ideas, and I have mentioned this multiple times in this thread, is that Proto-Slavic was a conlang invented on the Balkans in the 500s. Good luck finding evidence for that.
    Hardly you can offend Curta or any other linguist i relly on here..
    I say again,if you think that way why do you waste your time here on this thread?

  7. #157
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    3 members found this post helpful.
    [QUOTE=Milan;491552]
    There you go....
    I am posting you other people reconstractions and if anything doesn't agree with you,or your theory become to week you begin just to attack,just come down a bit..
    You don't even know the letter /ъ/ in Slavic mistaking it for /u/ and somehow you are lecturing about Slavic languages?


    I don't mistake it for /u/. In Old Church Slavic, the letters ъ and ь represented short /u/ and /i/ respectively, and they correspond to earlier Proto-Slavic short /u/ and /i/, respectively.

    What you don't understand is yes in Slavic the letter /g/ become /z/ and yes the final /g/ will be pronounced as /k/
    That is how it was written in Church Slavic "bouk" and on the other side you have "bъz" yes the /g/ become /z/ anything unclear here?
    I disagree that this is of relevance here. As you said /z/ is an outcome of palatalization. Therefore, as I said, the expected Slavic outcome of bheH2gos is *baz, not the attested buk. This goes back to what I said from the getgo, the word is a Germanic loanword. Don't forget that you also have the Germanic word for 'book' (including its English cognate), which also found its way into Slavic as the word for 'letter', e.g. Russian "bukva" (буква).

    You emotionaly attacks doesn't do anything here...
    I'm not being emotional. I've just analyzed your position.

    I say again,if you think that way why do you waste your time here on this thread?
    Has it crossed your mind that I actually might enjoy hanging out on Eupedia, and that there are people who actually enjoy reading this?

  8. #158
    Regular Member Milan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-11-15
    Posts
    358


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I disagree that this is of relevance here. As you said /z/ is an outcome of palatalization. Therefore, as I said, the expected Slavic outcome of bheH2gos is *baz, not the attested buk. This goes back to what I said from the getgo, the word is a Germanic loanword. Don't forget that you also have the Germanic word for 'book' (including its English cognate), which also found its way into Slavic as the word for 'letter', e.g. Russian "bukva" (буква).
    No it is not,bouk might not even come from there,it is attested in "elder tree" and well as "beech",from where then the Slavic word for "elder tree' will come from,Slavs were iliterate of trees,better even not to comment on the loanwords that you posted "grad"-encolosure being borrowed from Germanic instead PIE shared words almost among all IE's,pure ethnocentrism.
    It is not from bheH2gos you,yourself demostrated that in the previous comment?
    It is coming from (bhāuĝo / bhūĝo) according to what i follow.


    Church Slavic-bukva (letter) etc all being connected to beech,yes,people wrote on that.


    Has it crossed your mind that I actually might enjoy hanging out on Eupedia, and that there are people who actually enjoy reading this?
    Good for us then.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    1,984


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    The church terminology in Albanian is from Latin.

  10. #160
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    better even not to comment on the loanwords that you posted "grad"-encolosure being borrowed from Germanic instead PIE shared words almost among all IE's,pure ethnocentrism.
    How can it be "ethnocentrism" if the cognates in Celtic (Old Irish 'gort') and Italic (Latin 'horta') are both with *t? It is impossible to explain as having derived from PIE because the *d is wholly unexpected (it should be regularly with a *t in Slavic, just as in Celtic and Italic). In Germanic, however, from the cumulative effect of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law, you get *d (see English "garden").

    It is not from bheH2gos you,yourself demostrated that in the previous comment?
    It is coming from (bhāuĝo / bhūĝo) according to what i follow.

    Church Slavic-bukva (letter) etc all being connected to beech,yes,people wrote on that.
    "buk" ("beech") is indeed derived from bheH2ǵos, but it is a Germanic loanword.

    Good for us then.[/QUOTE]

  11. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    21-11-10
    Posts
    458

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>CTS9320>Z38456

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    I won't answer on this,but you must be right.
    Did u just admit or at least considered as true the idea of Albanian being a Balkan language? Wow.

    Now what comes to mind is that Albanian is either an Illyrian or Daco-Thracian.

    But it can't be Illyrian because you Serbs know it and it's not possible for whatever reason. But in the same time it can't be Daco-Thracian (like some fellow Serbs claim in this forum) because according to you they're Proto-Slavic languages, therefore Albanian=Slavic.

  12. #162
    Regular Member Milan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-11-15
    Posts
    358


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Taranis @ so far..
    You didn't knew that Slavic /g/ can become /z/ (see above)
    You mistaken the Slavic /ъ/ for /u/ (see above) after reading on wikipedia told me that is a short *u which is knowhere near the same.
    You was the one claiming that *o to *a Balto-Slavic share only with Germanic
    1. Phonetical similarities:
    Phonetical features Thrac. Dacian Alban. Balto-Slavic "Pelasg." German Indo-Iranian Greek Phryg. Armen. Italic Celtic Hittite Tokhar.
    IE o>a + + + + + + + + A +

    Completely ignoring the problem of the beech and Proto-Slavic homeland,completely ignoring proffesional linguists,any counter argument you don't see and even dare call someone dogmastic.
    Completely ignoring linguist proffesionalists and their distrust of something you want to tell me that is absolute truth.
    Completely ignoring proffesional archeologist and historians.
    I asked a river names from you,you showed nothing apart some links from wikipedia.
    You relly on Wikipedia.
    Apart that you know about Grimm's law,Verner's law and sound shifts,which can be learned for couple of days...
    So far you showed that you know very little about Indo-European languages in general making and next to nothing about Slavic.
    You showed only stubborness so far.
    I think disscusion like this is useless.
    "buk" ("beech") is indeed derived from bheH2ǵos, but it is a Germanic loanword.
    Call it "bouk" at least like in Church Slavic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    How can it be "ethnocentrism" if the cognates in Celtic (Old Irish 'gort') and Italic (Latin 'horta') are both with *t? It is impossible to explain as having derived from PIE because the *d is wholly unexpected (it should be regularly with a *t in Slavic, just as in Celtic and Italic). In Germanic, however, from the cumulative effect of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law, you get *d (see English "garden").
    Not to extend the disscusion a quick link from wikitionary not only wikipedia can help you here.

  13. #163
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    Taranis @ so far..
    You didn't knew that Slavic /g/ can become /z/ (see above)
    You mistaken the Slavic /ъ/ for /u/ (see above) after reading on wikipedia told me that is a short *u which is knowhere near the same.

    Now you're intentionally misquoting me.

    You was the one claiming that *o to *a Balto-Slavic share only with Germanic
    1. Phonetical similarities:
    Phonetical features Thrac. Dacian Alban. Balto-Slavic "Pelasg." German Indo-Iranian Greek Phryg. Armen. Italic Celtic Hittite Tokhar.
    IE o>a + + + + + + + + A +

    Completely ignoring the problem of the beech and Proto-Slavic homeland
    I don't completely ignore the "problem" of the beech, I pinpointed you to it (it wasn't part of this thread until I mentioned it, you can go back and read the thread from the start): the Slavic word for beech is of Germanic origin. Deal with it.

    As for you showing that table again, I've made my point about Pelasgian before: its a canard. There is no "Pelasgian" language, you're tracing a phantom. Yes, Indo-Iranic merge *e,o > *a, and so does Hittite mere *o > *a, but do you really think that's a common (read: linked) sound change with Slavic?

    ,completely ignoring proffesional linguists,any counter argument you don't see and even dare call someone dogmastic.
    Completely ignoring linguist proffesionists and their distrust of something you want to tell me that is absolute truth.
    Completely ignoring proffesional archeologist and historians.
    I'm not ignoring them, but I disagree with them when they spout nonsense, such as Curta.

    I asked a river names from you,you showed nothing apart some links from wikipedia.
    I didn't get around to that yet. Blame me.

    You relly on Wikipedia.
    Apart that you know about Grimm's law,Verner's law and sound shifts,which can be learned for couple of days...
    So far you showed that you know very little about Indo-European languages in general making this fallacies and next to nothing about Slavic.
    I'm not the one who relies on Wikipedia.

    You showed only stubborness so far.
    I think disscusion like this is useless.
    I like you too, Milan.

    Not to extend the disscusion a quick link from wikitionary not only wikipedia can help you here.
    If I were you, I would not rely on wiktionary (I for one don't).

  14. #164
    Regular Member Milan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-11-15
    Posts
    358


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post

    Now you're intentionally misquoting me.



    I don't completely ignore the "problem" of the beech, I pinpointed you to it (it wasn't part of this thread until I mentioned it, you can go back and read the thread from the start): the Slavic word for beech is of Germanic origin. Deal with it.
    Maybe other way around,even apart that hypothetical "Gothic" sorry if it hurts invented ;)
    As for you showing that table again, I've made my point about Pelasgian before: its a canard. There is no "Pelasgian" language, you're tracing a phantom. Yes, Indo-Iranic merge *e,o > *a, and so does Hittite mere *o > *a, but do you really think that's a common (read: linked) sound change with Slavic?
    It was about *o to *a sound change you said such thing doesn't exist in Thracian but only Balto-Slavic and Germanic share it,scroll your comments,Pelasgian is totaly irrelavant here.

    I'm not ignoring them, but I disagree with them when they spout nonsense, such as Curta.
    He is right if he annoys you,i feel that


    If I were you, I would not rely on wiktionary (I for one don't).
    Still you can see PIE is with *d,above all you can read many such toponyms from ancient times with *d instead.
    All Germanic borrowings.

  15. #165
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    Maybe other way around,even apart that hypothetical "Gothic" sorry if it hurts is invented ;)
    Biblical Gothic is not an invented language (just like Old Church Slavic, yeah?), the assertation alone is silly. Nor are the names of East Germanic tribal leaders from the Migration Period (or earlier recorded Germanic names) invented. Again, if you had an understanding of sound laws and how they work (notably, the Neogrammarian hypothesis and the concept that sound laws are 'exceptionless'), you would come to the same conclusion as I do. There is a general agreement that Proto-Slavic borrowed heavily from Germanic over a greater period of time, notably before the *a > *o shift occured.

    It was about *o to *a sound change you said such thing doesn't exist in Thracian but only Balto-Slavic and Germanic share it,scroll your comments,Pelasgian is totaly irrelavant here.
    Is it? The fact that the author you're citing, Duridanov, does take it into account as a valid Indo-European language is a reason for me not to take him seriously.

    He is right if he annoys you,i feel that
    I'll be honest: he entertains me in the same way that Vennemann or Wrexler entertain me.

    Still you can see PIE is with *d,above all you can read many such toponyms from ancient times with *d instead.
    I don't get what you're saying there.

  16. #166
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Has it crossed your mind that I actually might enjoy hanging out on Eupedia, and that there are people who actually enjoy reading this?
    I do, I do.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  17. #167
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Biblical Gothic is not an invented language (just like Old Church Slavic, yeah?), the assertation alone is silly. Nor are the names of East Germanic tribal leaders from the Migration Period (or earlier recorded Germanic names) invented. Again, if you had an understanding of sound laws and how they work (notably, the Neogrammarian hypothesis and the concept that sound laws are 'exceptionless'), you would come to the same conclusion as I do. There is a general agreement that Proto-Slavic borrowed heavily from Germanic over a greater period of time, notably before the *a > *o shift occured..
    Is the name Wulfilas attested anywhere?

  18. #168
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Is the name Wulfilas attested anywhere?
    Is the name "Jesus of Nazareth" attested in then-contemporary sources? I find the idea that Gothic was an invented "romantic" language invented by German nobility in the 1600s, and I'm actually quoting Milan right now, its all pretty ridiculous:

    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    There were two at least Bulgarian historians i know about Asen Chilingirov and Julija Dimitrova,writing on Getae and Goths recently.

    According to Julija,haven't read the book entirely a Longobardic runes are used in the "Biblcal Gothic",Chilingirov say that the paper is altogether a forgery of 16th,17th century,see Gothicism among Germanic nobility,this is Codex Argentus,Biblical Gothic;
    If you and Milan are going into the direction of the "history is a lie" vibe, I have two addresses for you: Heribert Illig and Anatoly Fomenko. Pick whichever of the two you like, but don't be surprised that the two have radically divergent ideas.

  19. #169
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Is the name "Jesus of Nazareth" attested in then-contemporary sources?
    Why do you change subject? The names attested are Ulfilas, Orfilas etc.
    That's one example of weird Germanic etymology and was the result of romantic nationalism.
    Βesides, 'Little Wolf' isn't a very appropriate name for a bishop.

  20. #170
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Why do you change subject? The names attested are Ulfilas, Orfilas etc.
    That's one example of weird Germanic etymology and was the result of romantic nationalism.
    Βesides, 'Little Wolf' isn't a very appropriate name for a bishop.
    I didn't change the subject. I just made the point that such a general suspicion is pointless. "Little Wolf" is just as much a viable etymology as the Saint Martin "Martinus" (pertaining to Mars - a really strange name for a Christian bishop of Tours, isn't it?). Besides, if not from Germanic, where is the name else supposed to come from? The presence of an /f/ narrows it down, because Slavic languages do not have a native phoneme /f/. In the East and South Slavic languages, most words with "f" are actually derived from medieval Greek Phi (Φφ) and Theta (Θθ).

  21. #171
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I didn't change the subject. I just made the point that such a general suspicion is pointless. "Little Wolf" is just as much a viable etymology as the Saint Martin "Martinus" (pertaining to Mars - a really strange name for a Christian bishop of Tours, isn't it?). Besides, if not from Germanic, where is the name else supposed to come from? The presence of an /f/ narrows it down, because Slavic languages do not have a native phoneme /f/. In the East and South Slavic languages, most words with "f" are actually derived from medieval Greek Phi (Φφ) and Theta (Θθ).
    He was from Cappadocia, so even from an unattested Anatolian language. Where does 'w' come from?

    I have one other example of a weird Germanic etymology:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Rapids
    Greek text: Varu'foros
    Germanic etymology: Bárufors

    The Greek text would have used 'μπ' if the placename started from 'b'

    All of them are weird, for me but I shouldn't bother.

    I should add only that Γελανδρι is a Sclavenic term in the text, and they give to that a Germanic etymology too.

  22. #172
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    He was from Cappadocia, so even from an unattested Anatolian language. Where does 'w' come from?

    I have one other example of a weird Germanic etymology:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Rapids
    Greek text: Varu'foros
    Germanic etymology: Bárufors

    The Greek text would have used 'μπ' if the placename started from 'b'

    All of them are weird, for me but I shouldn't bother.
    Here, you are assuming that the orthographic conventions of modern Greek would have automatically applied in medieval Greek. Instead, medieval Greek just substituted /b/ with /v/ (spelled with β).

    I should add only that Γελανδρι is a Sclavenic term in the text, and they give to that a Germanic etymology too.
    Gelandri is a related with English "to yell" and Dutch "gillen" ('to shout').

    As regards Cappadocia, I'm pretty certain that Anatolian (Luwic) languages were extinct in Ulfilas' time.
    Last edited by Taranis; 07-10-16 at 14:29.

  23. #173
    Regular Member Milan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-11-15
    Posts
    358


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    He was from Cappadocia, so even from an unattested Anatolian language. Where does 'w' come from?
    I'll tell you about the "w" cause Taranis don't want,one word- imagination as many things discussed in this thread.Time of "poetry"..Orphila seem more to me like dialectal variant of Orpheus if i include imagination,religious leader- orphaned,at least such names could be found,how is Wulfila derived,what is the suffix there? Why we add "w"? To be a wolf.

  24. #174
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Milan View Post
    I'll tell you about the "w" cause Taranis don't want,one word- imagination as many things discussed in this thread.Time of "poetry"..Orphila seem more to me like dialectal variant of Orpheus if i include imagination,religious leader- orphaned,at least such names could be found,how is Wulfila derived,what is the suffix there? Why we add "w"? To be a wolf.
    Even if you have the pre-composed opinion that the name Ulfilas/Wulfilas somehow cannot be Germanic and that the etymology is bogus for you, it doesn't change the fact that Biblical Gothic is an authentic Germanic language that could not have been 'forged' by romanticists in the 1600s (which was your assertation). Like I said before, it is not that people in previous ages (before the 20th century) did not produce constructed languages, because they very much did (Hildegard von Bingen's 12th century Lingua Ignota comes to my mind). But to actually construct Gothic would have required a background in linguistics (which as a science wasn't developed at that point in time). Please bear in mind that the people who, for example, well-known, elaborate constructed languages such Klingon and Quenya were invented by actual linguists (Mark Okrand and J.R.R. Tolkien, respectively), and in both cases we are talking about clearly fictional languages.

    So stop pretending that Gothic is an invented language. If it is, your fabled 16th century German romanticists were centuries ahead in their linguistic expertise, and they were so gifted that it happens that only the thorough analysis by South Slavic nationalists who are not blinded by Germanic romanticism can pinpoint the truth!

  25. #175
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Here, you are assuming that the orthographic conventions of modern Greek would have automatically applied in medieval Greek. Instead, medieval Greek just substituted /b/ with /v/ (spelled with β).



    Gelandri is a related with English "to yell" and Dutch "gillen" ('to shout').

    As regards Cappadocia, I'm pretty certain that Anatolian (Luwic) languages were extinct in Ulfilas' time.
    I am not assuming it. I know it and it is a well known fact. It is evident from the Sclavenic names. For example Οστροβουνιπραχ /οstrovuniprax/, 'v' written with 'β'.
    'b' written with 'μπ' is not at all a modern convention.

    Γελανδρι /jelanðri/ is a 'Sclavenic' term in the text and means ήχος φραγμού, not a term used by Rus, so even if you want to propose a Germanic etymology (I recognize that it's easy to do it) it has nothing to do with the Rus.
    It would have been a Germanic term used by Slavs and nothing more than that.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •