From: Brian M. Scott
>>>>> According to Hunibald, the people that came from theSpecial pleading. It seems especially pointless to suggest
>>>>> east changed their language during their sojourn in
>>>>> Germania. His work is generally considered a forgery,
>>>>> but he has an interesting detail
>>>>> He uses the name Wechtam of a holy minstrel and
>>>>> singer, a name reminiscent of the Old Norse name
>>>>> Vegtam-r, Odin uses of him self,
>>>> Note that the name has an obvious meaning in ON and is
>>>> one of several similar constructions (<vígtamr>,
>>>> <gangtamr>, <valtamr>). It would appear unlikely to be
>>>> a borrowing.
>>> Folk etymology.
>> That would be far more convincing if the epithet weren't
>> one of a matched set.
> 'vígtamr' and 'valtamr' might be loans through different
> languages. 'gangtamr' would be analogy.
>>>>> but also of Vakhtang, the Georgian (I think it was)No, because <undervisitet> doesn't exist in a vacuum; the
>>>>> version of Iranian V&r&Tragna. Georgia is in the
>>>>> vicinity of the old kingdom of Vani, where I suggested
>>>>> before that the Vanir came from. Now how would a
>>>>> forger come up with a coincidence like that?
>>>> What coincidence, exactly? You've pointed to
>>>> superficial resemblances between <Wechtam> and
>>>> <Vegtamr> on the one hand and between <Vakhtang> and
>>>> <Vegtamr> on the other. In order to claim that both are
>>>> significant, you must further claim that there is a
>>>> connection between <Vegtamr> and <Vakhtang>. This
>>>> appears most unlikely, to put it mildly.
>>> And that's what I'm claiming.
>> And added subsequently:
>>> Just for completeness' sake: Armenian Vahagn (also <
>>> V&r&Tragna), the Germanic tribe Vangiones, the runic
>>> inscription 'vangijo' on weapons finds in Denmark and
>>> the Danish given name Vagn.
>> There seems to be no good reason not to see it as
>> identical with the appellative 'wagon, sledge'.
> A word can't be loaned if there exists a plausible
> etymology for it within the language? How about this:
> (obsolete) Low Copenhagen 'undervisitet' "university" (cf
> 'undervise' "teach"). By your definition it is improper to
> suggest Latin loan here.
>>> Add a (South?) Caucasian or Armenian contingent (=You have yet to offer any evidence for this claim.
>>> Vanir) to the Iranian elite (= Aesir) of the Tungri.
>> I see. Clearly we have very different ideas of what
>> constitutes evidence.
>> * Your assertions about <sól> and <sunna> are questionable
>> to begin with and are cherry-picked out of a much longer
>> list that doesn't appear to support your claim.
> Obviously all the words on the Aesir side of the list are
>> * In the case of <Vegtamr> (and probably <Vagn> as well)<shrug> Sounds like perfectly normal English to me. If you
>> you appeal to folk etymology when there is a natural and
>> reasonably convincing etymology, and you place great
>> evidentiary weight on superficial resemblances.
> 'Evidentiary weight'? That's the kind of language I use
> when I run out of arguments.
> And 'superficial' by what criterion?If you don't have access to the OED, try <www.m-w.com> or
>> * You do the same when you say that 'the names [<Tungri>No.
>> and <Thuringian>] are alike'.
> The pre-Grimm roots of "Thuringian" would be *turing-.
>> * In the case of the Tungri and Thuringians you go on toWhen asked why you thought that the Tungri and Thuringians
>> say that this superficial similarity, combined with the
>> simultaneous appearance of these peoples in the
>> historical record, is sufficient reason for you to
>> conclude that they are the same people.
> I suggested, not concluded. I suppose you have a better
>> * You treat a known forgery (Trithemius's Hunibald) as aI have no idea; it's not out of the question that Trithemius
>> serious source
> Where does the "known forgery" get 'Wectam' from then?