Re: Bring back the real Piotr!

--- In cybalist@..., x99lynx@... wrote:

>
> The words themselves may not have at that time even reflected any

kind of

> early self-name, but might be what neighbors called these people (a

very,

> very common occurence in naming.) We don't even know if these were

in fact

> names of people, but rather names of places attached to the people

who lived

> there. Or references to other features that had nothing to do with

the

> self-name of a people.
>
> The fact is that we do not know that these names were not loose

terms that

> flopped about in a whole range of dialects that did not survive or

third or

> fourth languages that were what REALLY created any difference

between Gaut

> and Gut that may show up in ancient texts. (We do know that this is

precisely

> what happened with the name Volcae > welsh and vlakh.) Or that the
> difference between gaut and gut was not created later on when such

names were

> standardized, > copy of Ptolemy that listed the name as <gautae>.
> (Interesting here is that if Procopius actually was rendering a

Germanic

> written spelling (a la Wulfila) with <au>, the transliteration to

Greek would

> have been <o>. Wulfila generally transliterated Greek <o>s into

Gothic as

> <au>. So in Greek perhaps this would read "gotoi" or

even "gothoi.")

>
> <<<ge:atas> in Beowulf and Widsith>>
> I have a note here that from an H. Bibbs: "The name Geats is

actually zeats,

> and the yogh, "z", is pronounced "y" before fronting vowels, so the

correct

> transcription would be Yeats, which is close enough to Jeats

(Jutes) to be

> argued that they are one and the same." I'm as likely to believe

H. Bibbs,

> whoever he is, at this point. So I don't find anything here you

say more

> convincing.
>
> The odds are that <gaut> and <gut> were often confused among

the "ancient

> writers" and probably among Scandinavians until recent times and

nothing



Response >

if I may..


Having followed this list for some time ,I would like to suggest
that Steve is getting unnecssaily upset at some good natured banter.
from Piotr.

Also I think there is some validity in what Steve is suggesting.

From more recent times, the times of the British Army in India, the
British when dealing with the Jats, would prounounce the word as

" Gaut"


Some how "Jat" would not roll off the English tongue.


In northern India,

'Jats' are also known as 'Jutts', within a distance of 200 kilometres.

Y & J also interchangeable here, so we also find Yeta, jeta

Other variations also occur, but one example will suffice, that the
same people are ' sounded' differently.


I am exploring this area,and feedback is welcome !

Ravi