Re: Scandinavia and the Germanic tribes such as Goths, Vandals, Angl

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 7:04:04 PM on Monday, November 3, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >> In principle the possibility of an extra-Gmc.
> >> relationship at a much earlier date still exists, but as
> >> Piotr pointed out earlier, a relationship involving
> >> unknown sound changes in unknown languages is fantasy.
>
> > That's not something you can point out, it's a modus
> > operandi which is the result of a choice.
>
> Only in the sense that employing reason is a modus operandi
> that is the result of a choice.

Whatever makes you happy.

> > This is how I see it: the assumption that a word belongs
> > to some substrate Trümmersprache should not be made unless
> > all other options have been exhausted,
>
> It's a pity that you don't operate on that principle.
> You're substrate-happy and routinely prefer that
> explanation to others.

No. I stick to Schrijver (I think it was)'s principles for identifying
substrate words.

> > and should preferably be backed up by extra-linguistic
> > arguments for the existence of speakers of that language.
> > I think that is the case here: the oddly loose
> > distribution of documented folks named Jute, Eudosii,
> > Eucii etc all over Europe.
>
> You have nothing to support an identification of the the
> 'Gaut' and 'Jute' words in the face of a very plausible Gmc.
> source of the former. (I observe that the existence of this
> etymology is a fact that you're happy to ignore.)

Your problem is that you very well can identify an elephant trunk, an
elephant leg, an elephant tail, but you can't see an elephant.
Here's the picture:
1) If we accept Piotr et al.'s etymology of Goths as derived from
*gheud- we still have all the loose ends for Jute, so we'll have to
assume at least one substrate word to accomodate that.
2) Since we have now posited one substrate word already, it's natural
to see if we can join it with other words, for reasons of economy of
the resulting theory. Gaut- etc fits the bill.
3) We now have a motive for the Goths to emigrate from Scandinavia, we
have a reason why Jutland was once called Reidgotaland (we don't have
to assume as is standard that Snorri was making up stories), we have a
reason why the Øresund is called called the Jute stream in Finnish
(the Jutes played no particular role in the Danish crusades in
Estonia, Denmark was run from Sjælland under the Valdemars, the name
must be earlier, phonetically updated by a loan from Swedish who
referred to the Danish enemies as Jutar, bur the Øresund has never
called anything with Jute in Swedish).
4) The Goth have never distinguished themselves as casters of anything.

> > Just calling such an assumption a fantasy is a cop-out, as
> > I see it;
>
> I know. You don't understand science or the evaluation of
> evidence.

for i in N {
Torsten gets an idea.
Brian calls him names
}

> > the facts are still there and won't go away.
>
> You're confusing facts with your arrangement and
> interpretation of them. You're considerably more
> sophisticated, but it's still the von Däniken technique.

And the one you are using is called mudslinging. Yawn.


Torsten