Taurisci (Was:Re: Kossack's Conclusions)

> > As you remember, in order to derive all Germanic from Thuringian
> > Przeworsk
>
> ****GK: An absolutely kooky idea based on nothing but
> fantasy.****

All those Germanic language from (not about) which we have written
testimony. I should have been more clear.

> > I made Berig et al. bring writing and the corresponding language
> > to the illiterate Goths of Wielbark.
>
> ****GK: Yeah, sure. Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla,
> Ynglingasaga, ch. 7.
> Who remained as basically illiterate as "Berig" was.

Snorri was illiterate? Odin? I don't get it.

> Kookery compounded. There is not a shred of evidence for any of
> these "theories".

Including the idea of a east-to-west thrust in the 1st cent, BCE?

> Apart from Odinist lunacy,

The fact that I think Odin existed doesn't make me an Odinist. I also
think Napoleon existed, but I'm not a Bonapartist.

> the occasional presence of runes among pre-Christian Goths(nothing
> to do with "Berig")is no proof of significant literacy or
> literature.***

I never claimed otherwise. That probably remained an intellectual
pleasure for the few, as in Scandinavia, where a written koine existed.

> ****GK: If I wanted to indulge in some kookery of my
> own, I could argue (and this would be more solid in
> its unprovable kookery than your notions of
> Przeworsk-as-initial-Germanic or
> Berig-the-language-and-literature-giver-to-the Goths)
> that Torun was named after Thor by Teutonic Knights
> who had just read Snorri's recently available work. I
> prefer the standard view thank you.****

Now I think you are being sarcastic.


Torsten