Re: etruscan

--- In cybalist@egroups.com, s.tarasovas@... wrote:

> --- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Torsten Pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> >who would call their own land a "-
> > mark" (frontier)?
>
> The Ukrainians call themselves just so, 'Ukrayintsi'. But the
> ethnonym means 'borderers,"markomannen"'. Neighbouring Russians
> called them different names (Malorossy 'of Lesser Russia (the
> metropolian territory from wich a colonization of the proper

(Great)

> Russia has begun' officially and Sevriuki 'of the (historical)
> Sever'ane tribe', Khokhly 'toupees' etc. informally) up to the XX

c.,

> when the self-designation 'Ukraintsy' has been adopted.
>
> Sergei

I don't know what the political implications of "krain"(?) would be.
But declaring a land to be a "-mark", as the German emperor did was,
as far as I can see the equivalent of designating it a "frontier" in
the Amarican sense of the word, e.g. a "terra nullius" up for grabs.
Harold's epitaph seems to be the answer to that: Now the Danes are
Christians, so stay out. And it is remarkable that he uses the
word "Tanmark-" for his land when it had just be been declared
a "mark" by the German emperor. Which suggests *dan- is also foreign.

Torsten